P. v. Kirkpatrick
Defendant and appellant Daniel Darnell Kirkpatrick (defendant) appeals his conviction of aggravated mayhem, challenging it as unsupported by substantial evidence of a specific intent to permanently disable or disfigure the victim. Defendant also contends that substantial evidence did not support his conviction as an actual perpetrator or as an aider and abettor; and that the trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the natural and probable consequence theory of liability. Finding no merit to defendant’s contentions we affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Kirkpatrick