Brief Bank # B-664 (Re: PG X(E)(3) Helpful Rules and Standards For Showing Prejudice — Cumulative Prejudice].)
CAVEAT: The file below was not prepared by FORECITE. FORECITE has not made any attempt to review or edit this material and is not responsible for its content or format. FORECITE cannot guarantee the information is complete, accurate or up-to-date. You are advised to conduct your own independent, comprehensive research on all issues addressed in the material below.
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SEVEN
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Crim. B000000
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Los Angeles County
Superior Court
No. TA00000)
v.
JOHN DOE
Defendant and Appellant.
____________________________________/
APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Honorable Rose Hom, Judge Presiding
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
JANET J. GRAY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
STATE BAR NO. 99723
P.O. Box 51962
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
(408) 375-6263
Attorney for Appellant
C. Conviction Is Also Reversible On Cumulative Error Principle
Finally, if this court determines that no single error is individually prejudicial, appellant contends that the total effect of the errors combined to prejudice appellant’s right to a fair trial. When a case is close, a small degree of error in the lower court should, on appeal, be considered enough to have influenced the jury to wrongfully convict the appellant. (People v. Wagner (1975) 13 Cal.3d 612, 621; People v Collins (1968) 68 Cal.2d 319, 332.) Additionally, in a close case, the cumulative effect of errors may constitute a miscarriage of justice. (People v. Buffum (1953) 40 Cal.2d 709, 726; People v. Zerillo (1950) 36 Cal.2d 222, 233; People v. Cruz (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 308, 334; People v. Guzman (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 380, 388; and see United States v. McAlister (9th Cir., 1979) 608 F.2d 785.)
The combined effect of instructional errors and/or evidentiary errors may create cumulative prejudice. (See, People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 504, 519-520; People v. Buffum, supra, 40 Cal.2d at p. 726; People v. Ford (1964) 60 Cal.2d 772, 798.)
Moreover, when errors of federal constitutional magnitude combine with non-constitutional errors, all errors should be reviewed under a Chapman standard. (People v. Williams (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d, 58-59; see also In re Rodriguez (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 457, 469-470.) Cumulative errors may so infect “the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” (Donnelly v. DeChristoforo (1974) 416 U.S. 637, 642-643.; Greer v. Miller (1987) 483 U.S. 756, 764.)
Appellant respectfully requests that his conviction be reversed.
