| |
People v. Carasi (2008) , Cal.4th
[No. S070839. Aug. 25, 2008.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL JOE CARASI, Defendant and Appellant.
(Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. SA021795, Leslie W. Light, Judge.)
(Opinion by Kennard, J., with George, C.J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., and Corrigan, J., concurring. Concurring and dissenting opinion by Werdegar, J., with Kennard, J., concurring.)
OPINION
BAXTER, J.-
Paul Joe Carasi (defendant) and his live-in girlfriend, Donna Lee (codefendant or Lee), were charged, tried, and convicted in the same proceeding of committing two first degree murders on Mother's Day 1995. (Pen. Code, § 187.) fn. 1 The victims were defendant's mother, Doris Carasi (Doris), and his former girlfriend, Sonia Salinas (Sonia), the mother of his child. As to each murder count, the jury returned a lying-in-wait special-circumstance finding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(15)), and a finding of personal use of a deadly weapon, i.e., a knife. (§ 12022.). With respect to Sonia's murder, the jury also found true the special circumstances of multiple murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), and murder for financial gain. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1).) After a joint penalty trial, the jury returned {Slip Opn. Page 2} a death verdict against defendant, but not against codefendant Lee. fn. 2 The trial court denied defendant's automatic motion to modify the penalty verdict. (§ 190.4, subd. (e).) The present appeal from the death judgment is automatic. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 11, subd. (a); § 1239, subd. (b).)
We find no prejudicial error at defendant's trial. The judgment will be affirmed in its entirety.
|
|
 |
Site Map
Pasadena DUI Lawyers
The information on this California Criminal Defense Attorneys / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
|
|
