P. v. Tanksley
Appellant Kenneth Tanksley was tried before a jury and convicted of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)[1] He contends the judgment must be reversed because (1) the court excluded defense evidence that the victim had threatened appellant’s girlfriend; (2) the court omitted language from CALCRIM No. 3470 that would have advised the jurors they could consider the victim’s threats to a third party when evaluating appellant’s claim of self-defense; and (3) the cumulative effect of these alleged errors was prejudicial. Appellant also argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order that he stay away from the victim for three years, a point the People concede. We will order the judgment modified to vacate the stay-away order, but otherwise affirm.
Comments on P. v. Tanksley