People v. Marshall CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Apr 16, 2015 No. G050893Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the trial court erred in admitting hearsay statements against one defendant and failing to properly instruct the jury on the order of deliberations for murder charges, both errors were harmless. The conviction was upheld because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the dismissal of the greater charge cured the instructional error.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in admitting extrajudicial statements of a co-defendant against the defendant under the coconspirator exception.
Whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it must acquit on the greater offense before returning a verdict on the lesser included offense.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statements attributabed to Roland were not admissible against Marshall as statements in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit murder, and the court erred in admitting them. But the error was harmless.”

“The court’s failure to instruct the jury to find Roland not guilty of first degree murder before it could return a verdict of guilty of second degree murder was error. But the error was cured by the subsequent dismissal of the first degree murder charge.”

Filed 4/16/15 P. v. Marshall CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050893

v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF10000738)

TYRONE MARSHALL and EVAN OPINION RAMON ROLAND,

Defendants and Appellants. Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Gary B. Tranbarger, Judge. Affirmed. Eric S. Multhaup for Defendant and Appellant Tyrone Marshall. Catherine White, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Evan Ramon Roland. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Lynne G. McGinnis and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendants Tyrone Marshall and Evan Ramon Roland both appeal after a jury convicted Marshall of first degree murder with lying in wait special circumstance and personal discharge of a firearm allegations and convicted Roland of second degree murder. Marshall’s appeal contends his rights were violated by the admission of statements attributed to Roland. Roland contends the court erred in failing to instruct the jury it had to find him not guilty of first degree murder before it could return a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. The statements attributabed to Roland were not admissible against Marshall as statements in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit murder, and the court erred in admitting them. But the error was harmless. The court’s failure to instruct the jury to find Roland not guilty of first degree murder before it could return a verdict of guilty of second degree murder was error. But the error was cured by the subsequent dismissal of the first degree murder charge. We therefore affirm the judgments.

People v. Marshall CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

FACTS

DISCUSSION

DISPOSTION

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

MOORE, J.

FYBEL, J.

AI Brief