Contreras

People v. Contreras

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 880·184 Cal. App. 4th 587·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 642
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 10, 2010G042077California1,922 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

Jesus Contreras appeals from a judgment after a jury found true he remained a mentally disordered offender. Contreras argues the trial court prejudicially erred when it instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 224, the general instruction on circumstantial evidence, rather than CALCRIM No. 225, the instruction on circumstantial evidence to be given when only a defendant’s intent or mental state is at issue. We disagree and affirm the judgment.

FACTS

On October 21, 2003, Contreras pled guilty to two counts of assault with a deadly weapon with great bodily injury committed against his mother and his aunt. The trial court sentenced him to a total of four years in prison. After Contreras had served his sentence, the trial court found he suffered from a severe mental disorder within the meaning of Penal Code section 2970. The court granted the state’s petition seeking to extend Contreras’s commitment one additional year as a mentally disordered offender. After that time was served, the state petitioned to extend his commitment an additional year.

Dr. Meerabai Mohapatra, the sole trial witness, offered her expert testimony for the prosecution. Mohapatra was a staff psychiatrist…

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.