FILED 2/10/98
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
|
In re TAMEKA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
|
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TAMEKA C., Defendant and Appellant. |
A071519 (City & County of S.F. County Super. Ct. No. 119674) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION |
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 15, 1998, be modified in the following particulars:
1. At page 7, beginning at line 20, the phrase "in People v. Lee (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1737 held that," is deleted so that the complete sentence, beginning at line 18, reads:
"For instance, in People v. Williams, supra, 102 Cal.App.3d at page 1026, the Fifth District noted that ‘the doctrine of transferred intent was developed for the purpose of redressing physical injury’ and in an assault case, ‘the jury should be instructed on transferred intent only when "the defendant actually commits an assault against the wrong person, due to mistaken identity [citation] or where the defendant intends to commit an assault against one party, but through faulty aim, actually causes some physical harm to another person [citations]." ’ "
2. At page 7, beginning at line 26, the phrase "In concluding that the jury in Williams (and Cotton, which relied on the same rule as the court in Williams) should not have been instructed on the theory of transferred intent," is deleted and replaced by the following:
"In disapproving of even these limited applications of transferred intent, the court in Lee stated: ‘In our view, Cotton and Williams were wrongly decided; they did not consider the implications of Rocha, and they are inconsistent with both Rocha and Colantuono.’ (People v. Lee, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1737.)"
There is no change in the judgment.
Date: _______________ ____________________________
Kline, P.J.