P. v. Felton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed 10/13/04 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E033333 (Super.Ct.Nos. FSB026722, FSB028320) ANDRA FELTON, Defendant and Appellant. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] The petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed in this matter on September 13, 2004 is modified as follows: 1. Footnote 1, on page 16, is deleted. 2. On page 18, before the first full paragraph (beginning, We conclude that ), the following paragraph is inserted: In a single sentence, defendant asserts: The admission of accomplice testimony without cautionary instruction[s] allowed the prosecution to convict [defendant] using unreliable evidence, [in] violation of the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause. Defendant waived this argument by failing to support it with citation to authority and reasoned argument. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793.) In any event, the corroboration requirement itself is a matter of state law, not due process. (In re Mitchell P. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 946, 949; In re Eugene M. (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 650, 657; In re R.C. (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 887, 893.) A fortiori, when there is sufficient corroboration, the failure to give accomplice instructions does not violate due process. (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 966; People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 143.) Except for these modifications, the opinion remains unchanged. These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment. CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION HOLLENHORST Acting P.J. I concur: GAUT J. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.