Douglas

People v. Douglas

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1089·39 Cal. App. 4th 1385·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 534·95 Daily Journal DAR 14869·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8648
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 7, 1995E014602California3,598 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richli, J.

Defendant Lasance Ravon Douglas (defendant) was convicted of kidnapping for robbery, robbery, forcible oral copulation and rape. Sentence enhancement allegations that he kidnapped the victim for purposes of forcible oral copulation and rape were found true. In this appeal, he contends that:

1. It was unconstitutional for the case to be tried before a municipal court judge, pursuant to a blanket assignment order.

2. Evidence that the victim had expressed fear of being infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, as a result of the rape was irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay.

3. CALJIC No. 2.71.5, concerning adoptive admissions, erroneously and unconstitutionally permitted the jury to draw adverse inferences from defendant’s silence after being given Miranda warnings.

4. The trial court imposed upper terms for the sexual offenses based in part on elements of the crimes, a forbidden dual use.

5. The trial court imposed upper terms for the sexual offenses based in part on aggravating factors not supported by the evidence.

6. The trial court failed to state reasons for its choice of consecutive sentences, and, a fortiori, full consecutive sentences, for the…

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.