P. v. Huggins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 5/24/06 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL JAMES HUGGINS, ) ) Defendant and Appellant. ) ___________________________________ ) S037006 Alameda County Super. Ct. No. H-9225 MODIFICATION OF OPINION THE COURT: The opinion in this case, filed on April 10, 2006 and appearing at 38 Cal.4th 175, is modified by deleting the fifth sentence of the first paragraph on page 238. As modified, that paragraph reads: Defendant asserts that some of the testimony falls outside the ambit of what is permitted elsewhere. For example, he argues that in Cargle v. State (Okla.Crim.App. 1995) 909 P.2d 806, the court questioned the relevance of testimony that the victim saved the county thousands of dollars by a personal fundraising effort . . . and was thoughtful and considerate to his family . . . . (Id. at p. 829.) Under this view, he contends, it was error to allow testimony about Sarah Lees s charitable contributions. But the testimony conformed to what the parties here agreed would be relevant. Moreover, except insofar as defendant asserts that it violated due process to admit evidence whose introduction he opposed below as substantially more prejudicial than probative (People v. Partida, supra, 37 Cal.4th 428, 431), his constitutional claims, along with his statutory claim under factor (a) of section 190.3, are forfeited (Evid. Code, § 353) because he failed to raise them in the court below; rather, he was actively involved in shaping the scope of the victim-impact testimony and limited his objections to evidence that might be irrelevant or unduly prejudicial (id., §§ 350, 352). This modification does not affect the judgment.
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.
