Defendant motorist appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo

Posted by laura dern on April 5th, 2021

Defendant motorist appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), entered upon a reduction of the damages awarded by a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff injured in a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident.

When the defendant motorist came to a stop sign at an intersection, her vision to the left was partially obscured by parked cars. She proceeded to turn left and collided with a plaintiff injured vehicle, which had the right-of-way. Plaintiff sued the defendant and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The trial court reduced the amount of damages that were awarded and entered judgment thereon. Defendant appealed, assigning error to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and the amount of the judgment; she also claimed that rampant prejudicial misconduct by plaintiff's attorney deprived her of a fair trial. In affirming, the court rejected these contentions. Defendant had failed to object to much of the asserted misconduct and any prejudice arising out of other misconduct was cured by the reduction in the damages award or by admonitions to the jury, which was otherwise properly and completely instructed. lawyers that handles class action  says that there was no error in admitting expert testimony and evidence of the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity or in refusing to admit evidence that the cars were parked illegally. That fact was not relevant as to whether the defendant was driving in a reasonably prudent manner.

The judgment was affirmed because the evidentiary rulings were proper, the jury was properly instructed, and, while plaintiff's counsel committed misconduct which could not be condoned, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial and the judgment was not excessive; defendant failed to timely object to several instances of claimed misconduct and other instances were remedied by curative jury instructions or by the reduction in the verdict.

Defendant sought review from the Superior Court of San Diego County (California), in which he was convicted of attempted murder after a motion to suppress evidence seized from his mother's home was denied.

Defendant was arrested and convicted by jury of attempted murder of his ex-wife and her companion after a bomb exploded in her car. The police went to the home of the defendant, who was living with his mother, and searched the bedroom the defendant slept in after consent was given by the mother. The police searched the room as well as a suitcase in the closet which belonged to the defendant. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized which was denied by the trial court. The court affirmed the conviction holding that a search of a bedroom used by a son living with a parent who owns the premises, when made with the consent of the parent, was reasonable, absent circumstances establishing the son had exclusive control over the bedroom. The court also held that the search of the suitcase went beyond the scope of authority of the mother and unless the defendant was prejudiced by admission of the contents, no reversal was required. Evidence showing jealousy, quarrels, antagonism or enmity between an accused and the victim of a violent offense was proof of motive to commit the offense.

The court affirmed the defendant's conviction because the defendant's mother was authorized to consent to a search of the premises owned by her. Defendant's mother could not consent to a search of the suitcase found in the closet in the bedroom in which the defendant slept but evidence seized did not provide for reversal of defendant's conviction.