Zamarron

People v. Zamarron

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1241·30 Cal. App. 4th 865·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 17·94 Daily Journal DAR 17076·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9276
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1994H011377California2,434 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Defendant was convicted of kidnapping to commit robbery (Pen. Code, § 209, subd. (b)), robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and escape (Pen. Code, § 4532, subd. (b)), and he was found to have personally used a firearm in the commission of the kidnapping and robbery (Pen. Code, § 12022.5) and to have suffered a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667) for which he had served a prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5). Defendant was committed to state prison for life with the possibility of parole. On appeal, he claims that (1) the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding evidence of his state of mind at the time of his escape to rebut the prosecution’s assertion that the escape showed “consciousness of guilt,” (2) the trial court’s response to a question from the jury during deliberations amounted to a “directed verdict,” (3) the serious felony enhancement could not be imposed because it was charged in an indictment which bore the same case number as the indictment for escape, and escape is not a serious felony to which a serious felony enhancement can attach, (4) the trial court prejudicially erred in instructing the jury on the serious felony enhancement and (5) the trial…

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.