People v. Gleghorn case brief summary
193 Cal. App. 3D 199 (1987)
CASE FACTS
Appellant was convicted of simple assault and battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury. He sought review of the grounds that the verdicts were contrary to the law or evidence.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed appellant's convictions for simple assault and battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury. The evidence supported the convictions and even though appellant and his victim were both members of the same household, his victim had the right to defend himself by use of deadly force against a violent attack in his own house.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
193 Cal. App. 3D 199 (1987)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant sought review of his
convictions for simple assault and battery with the infliction of
serious bodily injury by the Superior Court of Ventura County
(California), which denied his motion for mistrial and motion for new
trial, and instructed the jury pursuant to Cal. Jury Instructions-
Criminal No. 5.42.CASE FACTS
Appellant was convicted of simple assault and battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury. He sought review of the grounds that the verdicts were contrary to the law or evidence.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported the convictions.
- The court held that appellant's victim was justified in using deadly force in response to appellant's attack because he acted reasonably upon the appearances that his life was in danger.
- The court held that appellant's subsequent beating of his victim after the victim's use of deadly force was not justified because once he rendered his victim incapable of inflicting injury, there was no justification for further retaliation.
- The court held that the trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on Cal. Penal Code § 198.5, or in instructing on Cal. Jury Instructions - Criminal No. 5.42 because even though appellant and his victim were both members of the same household, his victim had the right to defend himself against a violent attack in his own house.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed appellant's convictions for simple assault and battery with the infliction of serious bodily injury. The evidence supported the convictions and even though appellant and his victim were both members of the same household, his victim had the right to defend himself by use of deadly force against a violent attack in his own house.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment