Ceniceros

People v. Ceniceros

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 677·26 Cal. App. 4th 266·31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 303·94 Daily Journal DAR 9571·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5089
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 28, 1994F018984California6,108 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buckley, J.

— Defendant Andre Ceniceros appeals from conviction by jury trial of first degree murder and attempted murder, contending, inter alla, that the trial court's action in ordering defense witnesses shackled during their testimony denied defendant his constitutionally guaranteed “presumption of innocence” and precluded the jury from fairly evaluating the shackled witnesses’ credibility. In the published portion of this opinion, we hold that, while the court erred in so ordering, shackling a witness does not implicate or directly affect defendant’s presumption of innocence. Therefore, the error was harmless under the Watson standard.

Statement of Facts

Just before midnight on June 29,1991, Cassius Wade was in his two-door Pontiac Firebird “cruising” Mooney Boulevard in Visalia. His younger brother, Aaron, was in the front passenger seat; another younger brother, Robert, was seated in the rear seat directly behind Aaron; a friend, Yahsin Frausto, was in the rear middle seat; and another friend, Randy Langley, was in the rear seat behind Cassius. Meanwhile, defendant, Jamie Deloera, Bobby Palomo, Gilbert Gamica and Antonio Ramirez were “cruising” the same area in a black…

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.