California Court of Appeal

Conviction for torture, inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant and related charges are affirmed, where: 1) defendant's failure to object to the manner in which the video equipment was set up during the conditional examination of the victim has forfeited the claim that he was deprived of the ability to confront his accuser "face-to-face"; 2) because defendant did not possess a substantially different interest and motive in cross-examining the victim during the conditional examination than he did at trial, playing the examination for the jury did not violate his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion or violate defendant's constitutional rights by allowing the prosecution to amend the information to add the one-strike torture allegation to count 4; and 4) the jury was not improperly instructed with respect to the crime of unlawful sexual penetration.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/03/2013
• Published 05/03/2013

Judges

• HOCH

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel