P. v. Higgins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 2/4/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D055649 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD212359) RAYMOND HIGGINS, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING Defendant and Appellant. [No Change in Judgment] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 13, 2011, be modified as follows: On page 13, in subheading a, the word "attacked" is changed to read "attack[ed]." On page 20, in the second full paragraph, the sentence beginning with "The court did not admonish the jury" is deleted, and replaced with the following sentence: The court did not admonish the jury concerning the prosecutor's statement that Dr. Kalish and defense counsel had "attack[ed]" a rape victim until the afternoon session (after having originally overruled defense counsel's objection to this statement). On page 22, in the second paragraph, the word "essentially" is added after the words "entrée to" and before the word "accusing." The sentence will read: Although it is fair to ask a witness about compensation that the witness received for his or her work and trial testimony to attempt to show bias (see People v. Parson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 332, 361-363), the prosecutor crossed the line when he argued that Dr. Kalish had failed to write a report as an entrée to essentially accusing Dr. Kalish of being a "hired gun" who had been paid to create an "excuse" for Higgins. At page 35, in the paragraph beginning with "The basic facts," the third sentence is deleted, and replaced with the following sentence: A previous jury had deadlocked on these same charges, and there is no indication in the record on appeal that the state of the evidence changed in any meaningful way between the two trials. The petition for rehearing is denied. There is no change in the judgment. NARES, Acting P. J. Copies to: All parties 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.
