Case Brief People V Green

Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed the alleged crimes with intent, the trial judge rejected the defense. Procedural History: This case was appealed by the defendant to the California Court of Appeal; Second District after a trial court convicted the defendant on 12 felony offenses.

The California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of the trial court. Facts: The defendant Vencil Green was charged and convicted of 12 felony offenses. The defendant used a gun to commit robbery and kidnaping for the purpose of robbery. At trial court the defendant presented expert testimony that the defendant’s history of heavy usage of PCP and other illicit drugs that has affected his brain and his ability to have committed the alleged crimes with intent, the trial judge rejected the defense.

Issue: Was there sufficient evidence to support that the defendant had specific intent to commit the crimes or robbery and kidnapping for the purpose of robbery? Reasoning: The testimony of a series of victims to the events that led up to the defendant’s arrests infer that the defendant was aware of what he was doing, and had the ability to make and carry out a plan for his crimes.

There was substantial evidence to find that the defendant planned to, intended to, and in fact did rob and kidnap the victims as alleged, and intended to take and keep their property permanently from them. The defendant committed a series of robberies and kidnappings was arrested, was then released on bail then proceeded to commit another robbery, was then arrested, posted bail a second time and proceeded to obtain another fire arm and attempted to rob another victim.

The defendant has a history of heavy PCP usage as well as other illicit drugs, at his trial two expert witnesses testified that the defendant’s constant intoxication for years affected his brain to the point that his judgment was severely impaired. The trial judge rejected the defense. Holding: The California Court of Appeals affirmed there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding.