Opinion ID: 2581317
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: issues in petitioner's pro se brief

Text: Petitioner Everybodytalksabout claims Detective Ramirez engaged in cajolery by scaring him into making a statement when the detective played a tape containing false statements previously made by Mr. Prevost accusing Petitioner of killing Mr. Jones. [85] The Court of Appeals concluded there is no evidence in the record that the detective played Mr. Prevost's statement to Petitioner; and even if the tape had been played to Petitioner, the detective did not at the time know the Prevost statement was false. [86] Petitioner Everybodytalksabout has presented no evidence to establish that he actually heard the tape of the statement by Mr. Prevost. Even if Detective Ramirez did allow Petitioner to hear the false statements, it would not constitute a deliberate attempt to deceive Petitioner because Detective Ramirez did not at the time know the statements were false. Petitioner has presented no evidence that his own statement to police officers was not voluntarily made. Petitioner claims the trial court erred in not giving an intoxication instruction to the jury when there was evidence he was consuming alcohol and was intoxicated during the time Mr. Jones was killed. [87] The Court of Appeals concluded there was insufficient evidence that his drinking affected Petitioner's ability to form the necessary intent to commit the crime. [88] [A] criminal defendant is entitled to a voluntary intoxication jury instruction only if: (1) the crime charged has as an element a particular mental state, (2) there is substantial evidence of drinking, and (3) the defendant presents evidence that the drinking affected [the defendant's] ability to acquire the required mental state. [89] Petitioner has established the first two elements but has not presented sufficient evidence to show his intoxication affected his ability to acquire the required mental state. Petitioner was not entitled to a voluntary intoxication instruction. Petitioner argues his constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the trial court allowed his co-defendant, Phillip Lara Lopez, to make a statement to the jury and when it did not allow Petitioner to testify. [90] Petitioner contends that when two or more co-defendants are tried together an out-of-court statement which inculpates the other may not be admitted when the maker of the statement does not testify at the trial. [91] The Court of Appeals correctly concluded Mr. Lopez was not Petitioner's co-defendant in the second trial which is at issue in this case and that Petitioner's right of confrontation is not an issue. Petitioner argues the court should have instructed the jury to view Ms. Yolanda Ramirez-Lopez' testimony with caution because she was an accomplice. [92] The Court of Appeals concluded there was nothing in the record suggesting Ms. Ramirez-Lopez was an accomplice and thus the instruction was not required. Cautionary instructions must be given where the testimony of an accomplice is uncorroborated. [93] Ms. Ramirez-Lopez was only a witness and not a co-defendant on trial as an accomplice. The trial court did not err in not giving cautionary instructions concerning her testimony.