People v. Smith

Bad Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 89·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 640·2007 Daily Journal DAR 5660·57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 926·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4394
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 24, 2007B189383California2,135 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

Appellant Orlando Terrel Smith argues the trial court improperly imposed a deadly weapon use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)(1)) because he used the weapon (a knife) to kill a dog rather than a human being, and because, he claims, use of the knife is an element of the crime of animal cruelty (§ 597, subd. (a)) as charged. In the published portion of this opinion, we reject both arguments. In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we consider appellant’s contentions that the court erred in allowing a police officer to testify to statements that were not disclosed to appellant until the morning of testimony, and by not instructing the jury on the People’s alleged violation of a reciprocal discovery rule; and his claim of cumulative prejudice. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Appellant and Latisha Bell dated for about a year. During that time, appellant gave Bell’s daughter a puppy named Raven. Appellant had a bad temper. He knew Bell and her daughter loved Raven, and, on occasion, would threaten to kill Raven when he was angry with Bell.

In early October 2005, Bell ended the relationship. Shortly thereafter, on October 7, 2005, appellant called Bell…

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.