Filed 9/30/21 P. v. Webster CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157407 v. SARA ELIZABETH WEBSTER, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-180948-2) Defendant and Appellant. On May 24, 2018, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant Sara Elizabeth Webster with elder or dependent adult abuse resulting in death (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (b)(1))1 (count 1), and involuntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (b)) (count 2), following the death of her father, Henry Webster. On February 14, 2019, three days before the commencement of trial, the court granted defendant’s motion to represent herself in accordance with Faretta v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806.2 Defendant represented herself 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Defendant invoked her Faretta right after denial of her Marsden 2 motion (People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118) at a hearing on October 7, 2018. At that hearing, defendant claimed that the public defender failed to talk to the coroner, failed to subpoena her father’s medical records, had talked to her only once during the 10 months he had been representing her, failed to return her phone calls, and never described the basis of his defense 1 throughout trial and during all sentencing proceedings. Although defendant cross-examined virtually all of the prosecution witnesses, she was the only witness who testified on her behalf and did so in a narrative format. A great deal of her testimony was successfully objected to as irrelevant or hearsay. Defendant was found guilty on both counts and the allegation her victim was over the age of 70 at the time of his death (§ 368, subd. (b)(3)) was found true. Defendant’s motion for new trial was heard and denied on May 3, 2019. Defendant was sentenced to state prison for a term of two years, the mitigated term on count 1. The identical term imposed on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654. The section 368, subdivision (b)(3) enhancement was stricken pursuant to section 1385. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the judgment of conviction must be reversed because the prosecutor committed prejudicial error during closing argument by improperly appealing to the passions of the jury, as defendant claims. The trial court determined there was no such prejudice and we shall affirm that ruling. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Evidence Produced by the Prosecution Around 6:00 p.m. on December 14, 2016, Daniel Skilling, a paramedic, was dispatched to defendant’s Concord home in response to her 911 call. When he arrived Skilling found Henry Webster, defendant’s father, near or identified witnesses on her behalf, although she had …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals