People v. Smith

Bad Law
168 Cal. App. 4th 7·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1729·85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 5, 2008D051448California4,727 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this case, we hold that a trial court does not violate a defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial by “preinstructing” the jury on the definitions of direct and circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 223, without also preinstructing on the method of assessing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence under CALCRIM No. 224, where these instructions are fully and correctly given along with the presumption of innocence and the prosecution’s burden of proof at the close of evidence and before deliberations.

Here, a jury convicted Tyrone Lamar Smith of possessing cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). In a bifurcated proceeding, Smith admitted, and the trial court found true, that he had two prior possession for sale or sale of narcotics convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (a)), four other prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370, subd. (a)), and another prior felony conviction, all of which rendered him ineligible for probation (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.07, subd. (a)(ll), 1203, subd. (e)(4)). Based on his admissions, the court also found true that Smith…

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.