Bishop

People v. Bishop

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 309·44 Cal. App. 4th 220·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 629·96 Daily Journal DAR 3988·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2495
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 1996B082840California7,918 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Appellant, Robert J. Bishop, appeals his conviction for murder during the commission of a robbery. He contends the court’s instruction, during deliberations, which permitted the jury to find the special circumstance allegation true on a theory of aiding and abetting deprived him of due process and effective assistance of counsel because counsel did not have an opportunity to address this newly introduced theory in closing argument. In addition, appellant claims there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions on an aiding and abetting theory but, if there was, it was error not to instruct the jury his liability as an aider and abettor ended when the stolen property was carried away to a place of temporary safety. Appellant also argues the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence of a canvas money bag found in his home, and in allowing evidence he had often referred to the victim as a “black bitch.” We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Appellant worked for the Stanley Smith Security company as a security guard. From October 26, 1991, to January 19, 1992, the security company assigned appellant to work as a guard for the “Parking…

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.