Dungo

People v. Dungo

Bad Law
176 Cal. App. 4th 1388·98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 702
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2009C055923California7,090 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

[EDITORS' NOTE: TEXT NOT CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION APPEARS WITH GRAY BACKGROUND BELOW.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1390 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1391 OPINION Defendant Reynaldo Santos Dungo admitted choking his girlfriend Lucinda Correia Pina to death, but claimed he did so only after he was provoked to the point of losing control, and thus, was guilty of at most voluntary manslaughter. The jury disagreed and found defendant guilty of second degree murder, in part on the basis of the testimony of a pathologist (Dr. Robert Lawrence). (Pen. Code, § 187 , subd. (a).) 1 At issue is the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the pathologist (Dr. George Bolduc) who prepared the report on the cause of the victim's death. A critical fact in the trial was the duration of the choking, which bore on the defendant's culpability, whether he was guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter. Dr. Lawrence was not present at the autopsy on the victim's body and was…

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.