P. v. Pryce
Defendant challenges his convictions for armed robbery, first degree burglary, street terrorism, and receipt of stolen property, on two grounds. With respect to each, the court concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and therefore affirms the judgment.
First, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the street terrorism charge from the other charges and to bifurcate a gang enhancement. Because the evidence related to the armed robbery charge and the street terrorism charge would be cross-admissible, the street terrorism charge would be unlikely to unduly inflame the jury vis-a -vis the robbery charge, and because the robbery case was strong on its own, the trial court was well within its discretion to deny defendant's motion to sever and/or bifurcate.
Second, defendant argues the trial court erred by admitting into evidence a gun found in defendant's bedroom two weeks after the robbery. Although two witnesses to the robbery could not positively identify the gun as one used in the robbery, they also could not exclude it. The gun was relevant not only to the armed robbery charge, but also to the street terrorism charge. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the gun into evidence although there was no unequivocal evidence connecting it directly to the robbery.
Comments on P. v. Pryce