From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pou

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.
May 23, 2017
11 Cal.App.5th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

No. B269349.

05-23-2017

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER POU, Defendant and Appellant.


[Modification of opinion (11 Cal.App.5th 143; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___).]

Defendant and appellant Alexander Pou's petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed on April 26, 2017, is modified by adding the following to the end of footnote 2, on page 14 [11 Cal.App.5th 153, advance report, fn. 2]:

"For this same reason, defendant's additional contention the Uber driver who called 911 told the dispatch operator that he heard the screaming woman about an hour before calling is irrelevant because none of the responding officers were privy to the 911 call or received such information from the operator. In any event, knowledge that screams were heard one hour earlier would not necessarily render unreasonable the conclusion that an emergency still existed when the officers arrived at the location and observed indicia of an ongoing conflict."


Summaries of

People v. Pou

Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.
May 23, 2017
11 Cal.App.5th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

People v. Pou

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALEXANDER POU, Defendant and…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five.

Date published: May 23, 2017

Citations

11 Cal.App.5th 960 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017)