Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel's Failure to Cross-examine Arson Investigator at Preliminary Hearing and Failure to Move to Dismiss Arson Special Circumstance

Text: Defendant faults his counsel for not cross-examining arson investigator Jakubowski at the preliminary hearing. He argues that such examination would have disclosed that the flammable liquid used to set the fire at the house of murder victim Litovich was placed only on the bed next to the victim's body, not in other parts of the room. Defendant asserts that this disclosure at the preliminary hearing would have enabled the defense to move to strike the arson-murder special circumstance on the grounds that no structure or property was burned with felonious intent independent of the intent to kill the victim. When, as here, a defendant after conviction asserts error at the preliminary hearing, the defendant must show that he was deprived of a fair trial or otherwise suffered prejudice as a result of the error at the preliminary examination. ( People v. Pompa-Ortiz (1980) 27 Cal.3d 519, 529, 165 Cal.Rptr. 851, 612 P.2d 941.) Defendant here has not attempted to show prejudice separate from the trial proceedings. (See People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 883, 923, fn. 19, 245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395.) Accordingly, we will not consider his claim of error at the preliminary hearing independent of our evaluation of alleged trial error discussed below. (See post, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d at pp. 520-522, 6 P.3d at pp. 182-184.)