Curry

Curry v. Superior Court

Good Law
158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 707·2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 507·217 Cal. App. 4th 580·2013 WL 3209532
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 25, 2013G047000California6,095 words

Opinion

Opinion

Worth, J.

Petitioner Paul Marshal Curry stands accused of murdering his wife Linda for financial gain by means of poison. Although Linda died in 1994, petitioner was not charged until 2010, after forensic testing confirmed Linda, a nonsmoker, had lethal levels of nicotine in her system when she died. At the preliminary hearing, a homicide investigator with no specialized scientific training testified about the forensic evidence forming the basis for the prosecution’s case. Over petitioner’s objection, the investigator was also allowed to convey the expert opinions of two doctors who believe Linda died from nicotine poisoning. Petitioner contends the investigator’s lack of knowledge about the scientific evidence and expert opinions he conveyed rendered his testimony unreliable, and therefore he should not have been bound over for trial. We disagree and deny his petition for relief.

FACTS

Petitioner and Linda met while working at the San Onofre nuclear power plant in the late 1980’s. They got married in 1992, and a short time later they had a barbeque at their house that Linda’s boss and his wife, Betty Reeder, attended. At the barbeque, Reeder heard petitioner boast that he could…

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.