P. v. Law

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed 6/6/11 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---THE PEOPLE, C063221 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 07F05651) v. HALSTON LAW, Defendant and Appellant. MODIFICATION OF OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 20, 2011, be modified as follows: The second paragraph on page 15 is deleted and replaced with the following paragraph: As we have already noted, the bullet and Officer Landberg s testimony provided evidence that was relevant and probative in showing that defendant used a firearm in robbing Richards. That the evidence may not have been strong does not require that it be excluded. Evidence must only be relevant; it need not be overwhelmingly persuasive. As the California Supreme Court has 1 held: Evidence is relevant when no matter how weak it may be, it tends to prove the issue before the jury. (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 491, citing People v. Slocum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 867, 891.) This modification does not change the judgment. THE COURT: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. HULL , 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.