P. v Malil
A jury found Shelley Mathew Malil guilty of attempted deliberate and premeditated murder of Kendra Beebe (count 1: Pen. Code,[1] §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, 664); and assault with a deadly weapon on David Maldonado (count 2: § 245, subd. (a)(1)). As to count 1, the jury found true allegations that Malil personally used a deadly weapon (a knife) within the meaning of section 12022, subdivision (b)(1), and personally inflicted great bodily injury on Beebe under circumstances involving domestic violence the meaning of section 12022.7, subdivision (e). As to count 2, the jury found true allegations that Malil personally used a deadly weapon (a knife) within the meaning of section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(23). The jury found Malil not guilty of residential burglary (§§ 459, 460) as charged in count 3. The court sentenced Malil to a determinate prison term of five years plus an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole.
Malil asserts three principal claims on appeal. First, he claims the court violated his constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process when it dismissed juror No. 12 during deliberations over a defense objection. Second, he claims (as discussed more fully, post) that he was deprived of his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial as a result of three alleged errors related to the issue of unanimity. Last, Malil claims the evidence is insufficient to support his count 2 conviction of assaulting Maldonado with a deadly weapon because there is no evidence he intended to harm Maldonado, who (he claims) was only injured because he grabbed the knife from Malil.
For reasons we shall explain, we reject these claims. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v Malil