1HV0iyl#CEB

Recommendations

Info

See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion People v. Kopatz __________________________________________________________________________________ Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal XXX Original Proceeding Review Granted Rehearing Granted __________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion No. S097414 Date Filed: April 30, 2015 __________________________________________________________________________________ Court: Superior County: Riverside Judge: W. Charles Morgan __________________________________________________________________________________ Counsel: David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): David P. Lampkin P.O. Box 2541 Camarillo, CA 93011-2541 (805) 389-4388 Andrew Mestman Deputy Attorney General 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 645-2458 2
Page 1 and 2: Filed 4/30/15 IN THE SUPREME COURT
Page 3 and 4: total debt of $117,883 and had reac
Page 5 and 6: did not see the family’s van. Bur
Page 7 and 8: hands. However, there was “blue p
Page 9 and 10: ecame very agitated and ordered Ala
Page 11 and 12: Throughout the evening at the Kopat
Page 13 and 14: f. Defendant’s Behavior After the
Page 15 and 16: h. The Autopsy Findings Both Mary a
Page 17 and 18: Arthur Kopatz, defendant’s brothe
Page 19 and 20: During his cross-examination, Offic
Page 21 and 22: elieved he was in custody, and thus
Page 23 and 24: defendant indicated assent by respo
Page 25 and 26: was not free to leave when he said,
Page 27 and 28: At trial, Mae Ballou testified that
Page 29 and 30: Evidence Code section 1202 provides
Page 31 and 32: Les and Mae replied they had seen a
Page 33 and 34: a telephone call from defendant on
Page 35 and 36: testimony undue weight. The trial c
Page 37 and 38: all Ashley had gone through, she ha
Page 39 and 40: the verdict forms. Even assuming hi
Page 41 and 42: determination for the murders of ea
Page 43 and 44: . CALJIC No. 8.88 CALJIC No. 8.88 i
Page 45: We affirm the judgment. III. DISPOS

1HV0iyl#CEB

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?