In a motor vehicle accident case, is a plaintiff's stipulation to fact that he suffered great bodily injury as a result of a gunshot wound to the leg not sufficient evidence?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Igwegbe, C070360 (Cal. App. 2013):
In this case, counsel cannot be faulted for attempting to limit the evidence regarding the extent of Munoz's injuries. Stipulating that Munoz received injuries from the collision and that those injuries met the bodily injury element under section 23153 was reasonable. (People v. Mendias (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 195, 206-207 [counsel's stipulation to fact that victim suffered great bodily injury as result of gunshot wound to leg did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel].) Furthermore, under the circumstances presented here, candor with the jury that Munoz had been injured after being hit by a car traveling approximately 65-75 miles per hour indicates a legitimate trial
Page 8
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
