People v. Nava CA5
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
A jury convicted appellant Luis Alberto Alarcon Nava of kidnap with intent to rape and assault with intent to rape. During deliberations, the jury submitted the following question to the trial judge: “When does the act of kidnapping start with regard to ‘movement.’” The trial court did not answer the jury’s question, determining this was a factual issue, but the court offered additional argument from the attorneys. After three hours of continued deliberations, the jury requested additional argument. Before the arguments occurred, the trial judge confirmed with the foreman that the jury was deadlocked. During the additional arguments, appellant’s trial counsel made certain comments concerning movement. Appellant contends the trial court prejudicially erred when it failed to provide clarification to the jury, arguing the jury sought further legal instruction, and he maintains the court erred in ordering additional argument. Finally, appellant asserts his trial counsel made a “concession” during the additional arguments, establishing ineffective assistance of counsel. We find appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and affirm.