LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

RUFO v OJ SIMPSON Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CaseNo: RVOS91036, CourtName: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff: RUFO, State: CA California, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>RVOS91036, Simpson, Nicole, Evidence, Jury, Trial Court, Goldman, Murder, Ronald, Prior, Testimony, Los Angeles, Nicole Brown Simpson, Evidence Code, Appellate, Simpson Contends, Fredric Goldman, Limited Purpose, Judgments, Sharon Rufo, Instruction, Contamination, Proceeding, Appellant, Cross-examine, Lie Detector, Hearsay Rule , ContentID: 120243728

Case Documents
1   APPEAL
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 110276
44 pages
PDF
Total Documents: 1 document , 44 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . APPEAL

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
NICOLE
EVIDENCE
PLAINTIFFS
JURY
DEFENDANT
TRIAL COURT
GOLDMAN
MURDER
RONALD
PRIOR
TESTIMONY
COUNSEL
LOS ANGELES
NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON
EVIDENCE CODE
APPELLATE
SIMPSON CONTENDS
FREDRIC GOLDMAN
LIMITED PURPOSE
JUDGMENTS
SHARON RUFO
INSTRUCTION
CONTAMINATION
PROCEEDING
APPELLANT
CROSS-EXAMINE
LIE DETECTOR
HEARSAY RULE
Filed 1/26/01
                                             CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                           SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FOUR

SHARON RUFO et al.,                                    B112612

                 Plaintiffs and Respondents,           (Super. Ct. Nos. SC031947,
                                                        SC036340, SC036876)
        v.

ORENTHAL JAMES SIMPSON,

                 Defendant and Appellant.



        APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Hiroshi Fujisake, Judge.  Affirmed.
        Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Robert C. Baker, and Daniel Patrick Leonard
for Defendant and Appellant.
        Hornberger, Ghazarians & Brewer and Michael A. Brewer for Plaintiff and
Respondent Sharon Rufo.
        Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, Thomas P. Lambert, Peter B. Gelblum, Yvette
Molinaro, and Jeffrey D. Goldman; O'Melveny & Myers and Daniel M. Petrocelli
for Plaintiff and Respondent Fredric Goldman.
        Edward J. Horowitz and John Quinlan Kelly for Plaintiff and Respondent
Louis H. Brown.



                                 INTRODUCTION


      These consolidated civil actions arise from the murders of Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ronald Lyle Goldman.  A jury found that defendant Orenthal James
(O.J.) Simpson committed these homicides willfully and wrongfully, with
oppression and malice.  Sharon Rufo and Fredric Goldman, the parents and heirs of
Ronald Goldman, were awarded $8.5 million compensatory damages on their cause
of action for wrongful death.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.60, 377.61.)  Fredric
Goldman as personal representative of the estate of Ronald Goldman was awarded
minor compensatory damages and $12.5 million punitive damages on the survival
action, the cause of action Ronald Goldman would have had if he survived.  (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 377.30, 377.34.)  Louis H. Brown as personal representative of the
estate of Nicole Brown Simpson was awarded minor compensatory damages and
SNIPPETS:
  • APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hiroshi Fujisake, Judge.
  • Baker, Silberberg & Keener, Robert C. Baker, and Daniel Patrick Leonard for Defendant and
  • Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, Thomas P. Lambert, Peter B. Gelblum, Yvette Molinaro, and
  • These consolidated civil actions arise from the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald
  • A jury found that defendant Orenthal James Simpson committed these homicides willfully and
  • Sharon Rufo and Fredric Goldman, the parents and heirs of Ronald Goldman, were awarded $8.5
  • He seeks reversal for a new trial on the grounds that the trial court committed reversible
  • Nicole and Ronald were stabbed to death on the night of June 12, 1994, in front of Nicole's
  • On several prior occasions during their marriage Simpson had physically abused Nicole.
  • Plaintiffs presented evidence that Simpson had time to commit the murders, go home, catch his
  • Simpson contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of statements made by Nicole,
  • Simpson contends the trial court erred in excluding defense evidence of prior testimony of
  • Simpson contends the trial court erred in denying a mistrial after plaintiffs' counsel
  • Evidence Code section 1101, subdivision provides, "Except as provided in this section,
  • "Appellant contends that evidence of marital discord and prior assaults does not support the
  • After considering Simpson's motion to exclude the following evidence entirely, the court
  • Nicole's statements describing those incidents were therefore relevant, and they were
  • Later when Goldman's counsel sought to cross-examine Simpson about the letter, Goldman's
  • raised no issue that the victim's conduct immediately preceding death in any way provoked or or killing; but error harmless in light of limiting instruction]; and People v. Noguera 4 Cal.4th
  • The appellate court may not interfere with the trial court's determination to admit the
  • Simpson contends the trial court erred in failing to sustain an initial objection, and
  • This section "provides a hearsay exception for former testimony given at the former
  • 1994; that in his opinion these studies indicated a pattern of additional alleles showing up g the period covered by the validation studies.
  •    |