People v. Gionis case brief summary
9 Cal. 4th 1196 (1995)
CASE FACTS
After defendant husband's wife filed for divorce, the wife and a friend were assaulted. Defendant was arrested and defendant's friend, a lawyer, testified at the trial about several of defendant's statements to the friend. Defendant objected and claimed that the statements violated the attorney-client privilege. The trial court overruled the objections because before the statements were made, the friend had made it clear to defendant that the friend was not willing be involved in the matter as a lawyer. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a firearm. Defendant appealed and the lower court reversed based on the testimony and the prosecutor's comments that were made during closing arguments.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the reversal of defendant husband's conviction for conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a firearm because defendant's statements to his friend were neither privileged nor prejudicial. In addition, most of the prosecutor's remarks that were challenged by defendant were not misconduct and those that were improper did not prejudice defendant.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
9 Cal. 4th 1196 (1995)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The prosecution appealed of the order
of the Court of Appeals of California that reversed defendant
husband's conviction in the Superior Court of Orange County
(California) for conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to
commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a
firearm.CASE FACTS
After defendant husband's wife filed for divorce, the wife and a friend were assaulted. Defendant was arrested and defendant's friend, a lawyer, testified at the trial about several of defendant's statements to the friend. Defendant objected and claimed that the statements violated the attorney-client privilege. The trial court overruled the objections because before the statements were made, the friend had made it clear to defendant that the friend was not willing be involved in the matter as a lawyer. Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a firearm. Defendant appealed and the lower court reversed based on the testimony and the prosecutor's comments that were made during closing arguments.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed and held that the statements were not privileged because defendant did not disclose the information while trying to retain a lawyer and the statements were not prejudicial and thus not inadmissible under Cal. Evid. Code § 352.
- In addition, most of the challenged remarks by the prosecutor did not constitute misconduct and those that were improper did not prejudice defendant.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the reversal of defendant husband's conviction for conspiracy to commit an assault, conspiracy to commit a trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with a firearm because defendant's statements to his friend were neither privileged nor prejudicial. In addition, most of the prosecutor's remarks that were challenged by defendant were not misconduct and those that were improper did not prejudice defendant.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment