California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gurule, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 345, 28 Cal.4th 557, 51 P.3d 224 (Cal. 2002):
Here, assuming defendant first learned of the lying-in-wait theory when the parties were discussing appropriate instructions, it was not at that time too late to move to reopen the proceedings to allow the defense to produce evidence addressing the theory. (People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 869, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305.) Defendant, then, had sufficient time to confront the facts that allegedly supported the theory, eliminating the possibility that any lack of notice was fatally unconstitutional. Sheppard v. Rees, supra, 909 F.2d 1234, is thus distinguishable.
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.