Como

People v. Como

Good Law
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 922·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 1070·2002 Daily Journal DAR 1318·95 Cal. App. 4th 1088·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1082
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 2002C032966California371 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Defendant Joseph Whitney Como appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359). On appeal, he contends there was insufficient evidence to support those convictions. He also complains the court erred in denying, without hearing, the second of his three Marsden motions. (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 156 , 465 P.2d 44 ]. Finally, defendant contends the trial court committed various instructional errors.

In the published portion of our opinion, we discuss defendant’s claim that CALJIC No. 1.00 improperly instructs a jury “in a way that prohibit[s] jury nullification.” Because jurors are restricted to the determination of factual questions and may not themselves decide what the law is or what it should be, we reject that contention. In the unpublished portion of the opinion we reject defendant’s remaining claims. We affirm the judgment.

Facts and Procedural History

Discussion

I, II*

HI

CALJIC No. 1.00 and Jury Nullification

The trial court instructed the jury as follows, using CALJIC No. 1.00:

Defendant objects to that portion of 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.