Poindexter

People v. Poindexter

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 572·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1716·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14521·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10165
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 2006A110370California7,453 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sepulveda, J.

Defendant, convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Specifically, he argues that certain elements necessary to support lying-in-wait first degree murder were not supported by sufficient evidence. This argument encompasses the issue of whether a “substantial period of watching and waiting,” required for the related lying-in-wait special circumstance, is also required for first degree murder under a lying-in-wait theory. We find, as defendant argues, that a “substantial period of watching and waiting” is required for lying-in-wait first degree murder, but nevertheless conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. We affirm the conviction.

BACKGROUND

Victim Eric Johnson and his friend Erik Agreda stopped by the victim’s apartment on the evening of July 19, 2003, so the victim could pick up some money. Agreda parked in the back of the victim’s driveway on Fortune Way. While the victim went inside, Agreda stayed outside in the car. Agreda noticed there were several people in their mid-20’s around a car in the area. When the victim came back outside, he told Agreda…

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.