Laster

People v. Laster

Caution
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 134·52 Cal. App. 4th 1450·61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680·97 Daily Journal DAR 2051·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1448
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 1997E016226California7,655 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Defendants Ventrice (Vince) Lajuan Laster and Frederick Hayes (collectively defendants) were convicted on four counts of deliberate and premeditated attempted murder arising out of a drive-by shooting. Defendant Laster admittedly drove the car. Defendant Hayes admittedly was the passenger; the prosecution claimed Hayes was also the shooter. Defendants, however, claimed the shooting was the unplanned and unforeseen act of one of two mysterious passengers in the back seat. The prosecution accordingly argued that, even if neither defendant was the shooter, they were both liable for attempted murder on an aiding and abetting theory.

In this appeal, defendants contend that:

We find no prejudicial error, and we will affirm.

I

Factual Background

On July 5, 1994, about 3 p.m., Venus Blankenship stopped at an ARCO station on University Avenue in Riverside to get gas. She was accompanied by her cousin Nominick Hayes and her two children.

Venus, with her children, went inside to pay; Nominick got out to pump the gas. There were four Hispanic males in a nearby car. One of them got out, came up to Nominick and said, “What the fuck you looking at[,] homes?” Nominick said, “What…

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.