P. v. Tilbury
Defendant Daniel Lee Tilbury killed his ex-wife by shooting her seven times with a .50 caliber pistol. He was convicted by jury trial of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187), and the jury found true allegations that he had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). On appeal, he first contends that his conviction must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence of malice. He also asserts that the trial court prejudicially erred in (2) refusing to allow two questions to be posed in voir dire, (3) excluding defense evidence, (4) admitting evidence of defendant’s ownership of numerous firearms other than the .50 caliber pistol, (5) telling the jury that the court could not provide “better definitions,†(6) failing to define provocation, (7) refusing defense requests for two pinpoint instructions, and (8) failing to include lack of provocation as an element of murder in the murder instructions. Finally, defendant claims that the cumulative prejudice from these errors requires reversal. We reject all of his claims and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Tilbury