Although Empire Liquor was normally staffed by defendant's husband and son while defendant worked at the family's other store in Saugus, defendant worked at Empire on the morning of March 16 so that her son, who had been threatened by local gang members,3 could work at the Saugus store instead. It is not aimed at shopkeepers who lawfully possess firearms for their own protection. Indigenous Women to Financial CEOs: An Open Letter, Eastern Sierra: A Reminder to Renew Life after Disaster. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Trayvon Martin was murdered almost exactly 21 years later, on February 20, 2012. Latasha was involved in activities at a youth center as an assistant cheerleader, member of the drill team and a summer junior camp counselor.
For the first ten years of their residence in the United States, defendant worked in a garment factory and her husband worked as a repairman. Defendant's husband, Billy Du, was present at the Empire Liquor Market that morning, but at defendant's urging he went outside to sleep in the family van because he had worked late the night before.
807.). PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent.
1. [1] The same characters correspond to a number of Japanese female given names, including the on'yomi reading Junko and the kun'yomi readings Ayako, Masako, Michiko, Nobuko, and Yoshiko. According to South Korean government data it was the seventh-most popular name for baby girls in 1940. These criteria weigh heavily in favor of defendant.15 It is evident from the record that the court did in fact conduct the “overall evaluation” intended by the Judicial Council when it adopted rule 414.16, The court commented at sentencing that it did not “believe that Mrs. Du would be here today if the gun that she grabbed for protection had not been altered.” The court elaborated: “This was a gun that had been stolen from the Du family and had been returned to them shortly before the shooting. Neoliberal Capitalism No Match for Covid-19, City Hall at Risk, Former Officials Pitch to Protect It, Karabakh Soldier Leaves Battlefield to Marry Sweetheart, ‘On Again, Off Again’ Fiscal Stimulus Negotiations, Trump Tax Reform Helped Billionaires—Not Workers. ), By finding defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder, the jury found that defendant killed without malice aforethought. The respondent court sentenced defendant to ten years in state prison (six years for the base term and four for the gun use).
Microsoft Edge.
Rule 410 provides that “General objectives of sentencing include:“(a) Protecting society.“(b) Punishing the defendant.“(c) Encouraging the defendant to lead a law abiding life in the future and deterring him from future offenses.“(d) Deterring others from criminal conduct by demonstrating its consequences.“(e) Preventing the defendant from committing new crimes by isolating him for the period of incarceration.“(f) Securing restitution for the victims of crime.“(g) Achieving uniformity in sentencing.“Because in some instances these objectives may suggest inconsistent dispositions, the sentencing judges shall consider which objectives are of primary importance in the particular case.“The sentencing judge should be guided by statutory statements of policy, the criteria of these rules, and the facts and circumstances of the case.”.
Ordinarily, a woman Mrs. Du's size would have to decide consciously to pull the trigger and exert considerable strength to do so, but that was not true of the gun used to shoot Latasha Harlins. Thirteen-year-old Lakeshia Combs and her brother, nine-year-old Ismail Ali, testified that Latasha approached the counter with money (“about two or three dollars”) in her hand. Defendant also testified that Latasha threatened to kill her. Is soon ja du still alive Latasha Harlins' death and why Korean-Americans were targets in the '92 Teenager Latasha Harlins was killed by store owner Soon Ja Du. “For example, if 97 percent of all defendants convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not (or are) sentenced to jail, that does not establish an abuse of discretion regarding a particular appellant, regardless of whether he is part of the 97 percent or the 3 percent. In addition, the safety mechanism did not function properly.
In reviewing that determination it is not our function to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Defendant's husband attempted to revive her and also dialed 911 and reported a holdup. (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72, 120 Cal.Rptr. According to the District Attorney, this demonstrates a clear disregard of the jury's verdict that the killing was intentional. 7. Joseph told his mother about these threats every day because he wanted to emphasize how dangerous the area was, and that he could not do business there much longer.
In summary, he testified that the gun had been altered crudely and that the trigger pull necessary to fire the gun had been drastically reduced. The area surrounding the store was frequented by narcotics dealers and gang members, specifically the Main Street Crips. The court observed that the firearm use limitation typically involves “criminals who arm themselves and go out and commit crimes.” Here the circumstances are very different. 411, 557 P.2d 995.) That case felt personal. By convicting defendant of voluntary manslaughter, the jury impliedly found that defendant had the intent to kill and that the killing was unlawful, i.e., that it was neither justifiable nor excusable. David Butler, a Los Angeles Police Department ballistics expert, testified extensively about the gun, a Smith & Wesson .38–caliber revolver with a two-inch barrel. Thank you for helping build the largest language community on the internet.
The standard for reviewing a trial court's finding that a case may or may not be unusual is abuse of discretion. 8.42, 8.43 and 8.44] and honest but unreasonable belief in self-defense [CALJIC No. The court then granted probation to defendant after applying the criteria prescribed by California Rules of Court, rule 414, including the following: the manner in which the crime was carried out did not demonstrate criminal sophistication (rule 414(a)(8)), defendant would not be a danger to others if she were not imprisoned (rule 414(b)(8)), the crime was committed because of an unusual circumstance such as great provocation which is unlikely to recur (rule 414(a)(7)),13 and defendant had no prior criminal record (rule 414(b)(1)).14 There are other criteria under rule 414 which the court could consider although it did not explicitly so state on the record. Defendant's husband entered the store upon hearing defendant's calls for help and saw Latasha lying on the floor. According to defendant, she asked Latasha to pay for the orange juice and Latasha replied, “What orange juice?” Defendant concluded that Latasha was trying to steal the juice.5. First, the court is presumed to have considered all relevant criteria enumerated in the rules unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise. She is not a person who would actively seek to harm another․” However, she went on to state that although defendant expressed concern for the victim 7 and her family, this remorse was centered largely on the effect of the incident on defendant and her own family.8 The respondent court found, however, that defendant's “failure to verbalize her remorse to the Probation Department [was] much more likely a result of cultural and language barriers rather than an indication of a lack of true remorse.”. Defendant was sentenced to ten years in state prison. Third, I find that the defendant participated in the crime under circumstances of great provocation, coercion, and duress.”.