P.

P. v. Hamilton CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2013C068430California8,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

introduction of evidence that C.G. offered to take a polygraph test by failing to object at trial, and in any event, the admission of such evidence is harmless; the trial court properly instructed the jury on aider and abettor liability; the prosecutor did not commit misconduct; the DNA evidence against Garrett was reliable; and Garrett failed to meet his burden of establishing his trial counsel was ineffective. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment against him in its entirety.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In mid-July 2000, 14-year-old C.G. went to the movies with her boyfriend Cameo, a guy named “Chris,” and her neighbor. During the movie, C.G. orally copulated Cameo. A couple of days later, on the evening of July 18, Chris showed up at C.G.’s mother’s apartment and invited C.G. to watch a movie at his grandmother’s home. As C.G. walked to the car with Chris, she noticed there was another person inside the car. Once inside the car, she saw Chris wave to two occupants of another car, who then followed them to a nearby park. When they arrived, C.G. asked Chris why they were at the park

3 and not at his grandmother’s house, and he told her not to worry, and that they…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.