People v. Caro
- Area
- criminal
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 9/11/19
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SOCORRO SUSAN CARO, Defendant and Appellant.
S106274
Ventura County Superior Court CR47813 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARAING THE COURT: The opinion in this matter, which was filed June 13, 2019, appearing at 7 Cal.5th 463, is modified as follows: 1. The second sentence of the second full paragraph on page 475, beginning “Defense expert” is modified to read: Defense expert Herbert MacDonell reviewed the forensic evidence. 2. The fifth sentence of the second full paragraph on page 475, beginning “MacDonnell found” is modified to read: MacDonell found transfer stains on Xavier’s jacket, socks, and pants.
1 3. The eighth sentence of the third full paragraph spanning pages 477 and 478, beginning “He diagnosed” is modified to read: She diagnosed Caro with chronic depression accompanied by mood congruent psychotic features, alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, and a dependent personality. 4. The fourth and fifth sentences of the first full paragraph on page 504, beginning “Defense counsel asked” is modified to read: Defense counsel asked if that was the first time Jones had examined the underwear, and he replied that he examined it “on a date earlier than that when other examiners were looking at [it],” those other examiners being “Richard Fox or Herb MacDonell. One of those two or both.” These modifications do not affect the judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Caro S106274 · 2019-06-13