California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mendoza, 23 Cal.4th 896, 4 P.3d 265, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 431 (Cal. 2000):
In arguing for a contrary interpretation, defendants rely primarily on our decision in People v. McDonald (1984) 37 Cal.3d 351, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709 (Mc-Donald ). There, the defendant stood trial on a murder charge, with a special circumstance allegation that he committed the murder while robbing or attempting to rob
[98 Cal.Rptr.2d 445]
the victim. (Id. at p. 355, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709.) The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant "`guilty of MURDER, in Violation of Section 187 Penal Code, a felony, as charged in Count I of the information.'" (Id. at p. 379, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709, italics omitted.) The jury also found the robbery special-circumstance allegation to be true. (Id. at p. 355, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709.) We reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court prejudicially erred in excluding expert testimony regarding psychological factors that may affect the accuracy of an eyewitness identification. (Id. at pp. 361-377, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709.)[98 Cal.Rptr.2d 445]
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.