People v. Askew CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 6, 2015C076394California3,028 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS

Facts Related to the Commission of the Offenses Few additional facts about the commission of the assault are relevant to our disposition of the asserted Doyle error. Our attention, therefore, is focused on the facts involving the alleged Doyle errors. The bartenders knew Houser because he had been helping out at the bar for a couple of months before the assault, hoping to get a job. One of the bartenders testified she served him one beer on the evening of September 3, 2012. The bartenders did not know defendant. He, too, was at the bar on September 3, and depending on whom the jury believed, he consumed several beers at home earlier and one or two drinks at the bar. Houser and defendant encountered each other in the men’s restroom about 12:30 a.m.

2 They were the only witnesses to what occurred in the restroom, and as mentioned above, each testified that the other was the aggressor. Angry and afraid, Houser emerged with blood shooting out of his neck. A bartender trainee saw him with one hand grabbing his neck and the other holding a knife. A bartender saw him with both hands raised and no knife. But a short while later, she did see a knife in his hand and she took it from…

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.