This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: People v. Westerfield

Lower Court

San Diego County Superior Court

Absent evidence that a jury was materially affected by the publicity and interest that a case generates, a court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for jury sequestration.





Court

CASC

Cite as

2019 DJDAR 3068

Published

Apr. 12, 2019

Filing Date

Apr. 10, 2019

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed


SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DAVID ALAN WESTERFIELD,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

No. S112691

San Diego County Superior Court

SCD165805

Filed April 10, 2019

 

THE COURT:

 

The opinion in this matter filed on February 4, 2019, and appearing at 6 Cal.5th 632, is modified as follows:

1. In the first paragraph on page 684, the sentence reading, "We further conclude defendant failed to preserve the claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying severance, although we would find no error in any event" is modified to read:

We further conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance.

2. On page 690, the first two paragraphs and the first sentence of the third paragraph are deleted. A new sentence is added at the beginning of the third paragraph, reading:

There was no abuse of discretion in this case.

3. In the final paragraph on page 694, the sentence reading, "Watkins agreed, but noted that there were several images that were 'borderline' as to the subject's age, and he did not include those in the 85 he deemed questionable" is modified to read:

Watkins agreed, but noted that there were several images that were "borderline" as to the subject's age, and he gave defendant "the benefit of the doubt" as to those images.

This modification does not affect the judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

#273029

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424