California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Palomar, F067273 (Cal. App. 2015):
Defendant alleges several errors on appeal: (1) the trial court erred in admitting defendant's two statements in violation of the Miranda (Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436) rule; (2) the trial court erred in failing to instruct sua sponte on unanimity as to the oral copulation alleged in count 1; (3) there was insufficient evidence of force regarding the forcible lewd conduct alleged in count 4; (4) when the trial court applied the amended sentencing triad to count 4 in the absence of a jury finding that the conduct occurred before the effective date of the amendment, it violated the ex post facto clause and defendant's rights to have a jury determine every fact required for imposition of a mandatory minimum; (5) the trial court erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to use a chart illustrating the concept of reasonable doubt during closing argument; (6) the trial court committed error by denying defendant's motion to quash the venire when an individual "gave a highly emotional and inflammatory account of her own family's victimization"; (7) these cumulative errors require reversal; and (8) the court's minutes and the abstract of judgment should be corrected to strike the presentence report fee because the court found defendant unable to pay the fee. We will strike the presentence report fee imposed at sentencing and affirm the judgment in all other respects.