Court of appeals rules Judge Cockrum "erred" in Jake Comb's jury trial

I just received this tip from a reader about the Facebook post. and checked the court of appeal. I have contacted DA Stacey Eads for comment. I also reached out to Supervisor Michelle Bushnell for comment. I am so sorry for Katrina and her family.

DA Eads promptly sent this response, "We are asking the Attorney General to appeal the appellate court’s decision.  There may be additional information I can provide in the future but for the moment I do not have additional comment."

As you see in my post, I had to clarify the sentence was 50 years to life. I am not linking all my coverage on this case.

You can read the entire ruling online. While the ruling mentions the prosecutor and defense, the ruling only highlights the trial court aka Judge Kaleb Cockrum who presided over the trial and erred which resulted in the judgement being reversed. 

People in the legal community and some in the general community will take sides depending on their bias. I was there for the trial and the testimony mentioned in the ruling. 

I googled Evidence Code 1101 and 1103. It was easier to read and understand that legalese then the apellate ruling. Combs made three points, the Apellate Court reversed based on one point. This is the worst apellate ruling I have read and I am talking specifically about their interpretation of 1101 and 1103 justifying their decision. I wasn't there for the jury notes and obviously not there for the deliberations. No judge is perfect, all judges interpret the law, no judge can be completely free of bias and that is true of a superior court judge, an apellate judge or a Supreme Court justice.

I am glad the DA is asking California Attorney General Rob Bonta to appeal the ruling by the Apellate Court. Let's see if the AG's office actually does something for Humboldt County. It is time the California AGs office actually fights for victims and their families where it does not involve Bonta only caring about making headlines and only filing lawsuits for specific  agendas. 

 

Page 1 of ruling:

In January of 2022, after a long day and night of drinking, defendant Jake Combs shot and killed Trevor Earley after Earley allegedly threatened to kill his dog.  Combs was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison, including a 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement.  Combs argues that the trial court erred by:  (1) responding to the jury’s questions regarding the elements of premeditation and deliberation by referring them to the standard instruction on those elements; (2) in admitting evidence that while in jail awaiting trial, Combs attacked another inmate in a wheelchair; and (3) in denying his motion to strike the firearm enhancement in the interests of justice.  We agree with Combs’ second argument, and accordingly we reverse.

Page 13 and 14 of the ruling:

 As noted, Combs argues that: (1) the trial court erred in responding to the jury’s questions regarding the elements of premeditation and deliberation by referring them to the standard instruction on those elements; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that, while in jail awaiting trial, Combs attacked another inmate in a wheelchair; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the firearm enhancement in the interests of justice.  Because we conclude that his second argument has merit, we need not reach the others.