P. v. Owens
Annotate this Case
Defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing following an evidentiary hearing. He contended there was insufficient evidence he acted with reckless indifference to human life when he participated in a brutal “takeover” robbery/murder. The Second Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s petition for resentencing following an evidentiary hearing. The court held that there is no miscarriage of justice because Defendant suffered no prejudice by the court’s consideration of any hearsay evidence.
The court reasoned that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings that Defendant was a major participant because he saw the events, heard the shots, and ran from the bank, passing the victim’s body as she lay on the sidewalk.
The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Defendant acted with reckless indifference to human life. In looking at the totality of the circumstances the court considered several factors such as the duration of the crime; Defendant’s knowledge of the killer’s propensity to kill; and Defendant’s efforts to minimize the possibility of violence during the crime.
Finally, Senate Bill No. 775 does not have any impact on the outcome of the appeal. First, there was no objection to the presentence report which contained hearsay, there was no evidentiary “bombshell” crucial to the People’s case in the report, and there is nothing unfavorable to Defendant in any hearsay documents that the trial court did not already know from the other admissible evidence.
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.