People v. Bohmwald CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 2021 No. B300413Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not err in refusing to provide a third-party culpability jury instruction because the defendant withdrew the request, the instruction was duplicative of the general reasonable doubt instruction, and it would have been confusing and argumentative.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give a third-party culpability jury instruction.
Whether the defendant forfeited the instructional claim by withdrawing the request and failing to include the proposed instructions in the record.
Whether the absence of a third-party culpability instruction was prejudicial.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because a third party culpability instruction is a “pinpoint” instruction that a court need not give unless requested”

“Because the general reasonable doubt instruction already informs the jury that it cannot convict the defendant if the evidence, as a whole, raises a reasonable doubt as to her guilt, it is well settled that a third party culpability instruction is almost always duplicative and hence unnecessary.”

Filed 6/10/21 P. v. Bohmwald CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B300413

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA068119- v. 02)

LINDSAY MILENA ANDRADE BOHMWALD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Bruce E. Brodie, Judge. Affirmed.

Lori A. Quick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ****** A jury convicted Lindsay Milena Andrade Bohmwald (also known as Lindsay Bohmwald Andrade) (defendant) of receiving less than $950 of stolen property, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)).1 On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in not giving a pinpoint jury instruction on third party culpability in light of evidence that the passenger in the car defendant was driving also knew about the stolen property. This argument is without merit for numerous reasons, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts Around 3:00 a.m. on the morning of May 1, 2007, defendant was driving with her girlfriend as a passenger, and was pulled over for having expired registration tags. The car was defendant’s. A search of the car revealed (1) various tools to commit auto burglaries (namely, wire cutters, a screwdriver and a variety of sockets) in the driver’s door panel and the area between the driver’s seat and the center console, (2) a stereo faceplate, keys to a Chevy, and an iPod on the passenger’s side floorboard, (3) a stolen disabled person parking placard, a pawn shop receipt, vehicle registrations for two other cars, and mail belonging to people other than defendant or her girlfriend in the glove compartment, and (4) a wallet containing defendant’s driver’s license and a work ID, her girlfriend’s ID and social

People v. Bohmwald CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B300413

LINDSAY MILENA ANDRADE BOHMWALD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief