Littleton

People v. Littleton

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 809·7 Cal. App. 4th 906·9 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288·92 Daily Journal DAR 8737·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5634
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1992E008605California1,583 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hollenhorst, J.

Defendant was charged with and convicted of one count of forcible oral copulation (Pen. Code, § 288a, subd. (c)), two counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), and one count of residential burglary (§§ 459/460). The jury also found that defendant used a knife in connection with each of the substantive offenses within the meaning of sections 12022.3 and 12022, subdivision (b). In a bifurcated proceeding following the jury’s verdict, the trial court found true two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a) and two prior convictions alleged pursuant to section 667.6, subdivision (a).

Defendant appeals, contending the court: (1) erred in admitting evidence of DNA analysis; (2) erred in denying a defense motion for discovery; (3) erred in precluding expert testimony regarding the dynamics of eyewitness identification; and (4) erred in rejecting defendant’s proposed instructions on eyewitness identification. We find no error and therefore affirm.

I

Facts

During the early morning hours of September 14, 1988, Lisa Z. was awakened by an intruder who had entered her bedroom and positioned himself on top of her. He threatened to kill…

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.