Legal Opinion

People v. VANEGAS

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 4, 2004No. B165475PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant Jose Vanegas challenges his conviction for second degree murder. He contends the trial court erred in prohibiting his expert witness from testifying to a portion of a report by another expert on which his expert based his opinion. He further contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury that for purposes of determining implied malice a violation of California’s “basic speed law” is an act inherently dangerous to human life. We reverse the second degree murder conviction and affirm the remainder of the judgment.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

At approximately…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Yates v. EvattSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Carella v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. People v. FloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
  5. People v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  2. People v. SaucedoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
  3. People v. Abad CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
  4. People v. VANEGASCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API