From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hunter

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Jan 13, 2012
No. A130641 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)

Opinion

Honorable Theresa J. Canepa No. 50912584, Contra Costa County Superior Court.

Attorney for Appellant: David D. Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Attorneys for Respondent: Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Helfman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Christopher J. Wei, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

Kline, P.J.

The published opinion filed on December 22, 2011, is hereby modified as follows:

1. On page 16, the second sentence of the second paragraph is deleted and the following new sentences are substituted:

“As we have said, the challenged instruction did not direct the jury that it could not find a reasonable doubt whether the gun was real based on the victims’ inability to ‘say conclusively that the gun was real and not a toy.’ But the instruction did highlight this one aspect of the evidence as not necessarily creating a reasonable doubt, thereby permitting the jurors to interpret the instruction as a caution against finding a reasonable doubt on this basis.”

2. In the third paragraph that begins mid-page 16 and ends at the top of page 17, the last sentence of the paragraph is changed to read as follows:

“Needless to say, the giving of an instruction suggesting that evidence received by the court and properly before the jury is insufficient to create reasonable doubt about an issue the district attorney was required to prove is manifestly impermissible.”

3. On page 17, the last sentence of the first full paragraph is changed to read as follows:

“As indicated, the proposition for which Monjaras stands, that ‘[c]ircumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to support a finding that an object used by a robber was a firearm’ (id. at p. 1436, citing People v. Green (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d514, 516-517 & fn. 1), does not exclude the possibility that circumstantial evidence alone may be insufficient to support a finding that an object used by a robber was a firearm.”

There is no change in judgment.

Appellants’ petition for rehearing is hereby denied.


Summaries of

People v. Hunter

California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division
Jan 13, 2012
No. A130641 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)
Case details for

People v. Hunter

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMUEL CARL HUNTER, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division

Date published: Jan 13, 2012

Citations

No. A130641 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2012)