Taylor

People v. Taylor

Good Law
1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 584·5 Cal. App. 4th 1299·7 Cal. Rptr. 2d 676·92 Daily Journal DAR 5915·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3750
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 1992B053325California7,584 words

Opinion

Opinion

Epstein, J.

In the published portion of this opinion, we discuss the responsibility of a trial court in conducting jury voir dire pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 223, added by Proposition 115, and find no basis for reversal in this case. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we conclude that the prosecution was entitled to present tape-recorded prior inconsistent statements of witnesses, even though, at trial, the witnesses denied only the truth of the statements and did not deny having made them; and that the trial judge properly responded to a jury question asked during the deliberation period. We affirm the judgment.

Procedural Summary

Anthony Taylor was convicted of second degree murder, pursuant to Penal Code section 189, with personal use of a firearm. (§ 12022.5.) He had been charged by information with first degree premeditated murder. (§ 187, subd. (a).) In bifurcated proceedings, three prior felony convictions alleged for purposes of enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) were found to be true.

Defendant offered no case-in-chief. The case went to the jury on the second day of trial. Five court days after that, the jury returned its verdict,…

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.