Five years ago, Nipsey Hussle was tragically gunned down outside of his Marathon Clothing store in Los Angeles, California. Since then, his estate and longtime partner Lauren London have honored his legacy in several ways. Family and friends have slowly found peace knowing that Hussle’s convicted killer Eric Holder faced justice for his actions.
Back in 2023, Holder was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison. Since then, Holder has fought to appeal the court’s decision filing arguments against closing trial arguments. However, according to AllHipHop, Holder’s efforts case has been rejected.
Based on documents obtained by the outlet, a three judge panel in California’s Second District Court of Appeal have ruled to uphold Holder’s conviction, which includes first-degree murder, two counts of attempted voluntary manslaughter and two counts of assault with a firearm for shooting two separate men (both survived).
Read the court’s decision below.
Nothing in the trial court’s rulings prevented appellant from arguing objective and subjective provocation to the jury or from clearly articulating the defense theory that ‘appellant acted in the heat of passion as a result of being publicly called a snitch’ by ‘the famous, the great Nipsey Hussle. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defense counsel from telling the jury what appellant was thinking and feeling at the time of the shooting to explain appellant’s conduct.
Contrary to appellant’s claim, the record here affirmatively shows the trial court fully understood and properly exercised its discretion when it declined to dismiss the firearm enhancement,” the three-judge panel ruled. “Highlighting the evidence that appellant used not one, but two guns in his violent attack which killed [Nipsey] and wounded [Kerry] Lathan and [Shermi] Villanueva, the court declared its finding ‘by clear and convincing evidence’ that dismissal of any enhancements in this case ‘would endanger public safety’ … The court emphasized its responsibility to consider and evaluate the mitigation evidence presented by the defense, particularly the evidence of appellant’s history of mental illness, and it indicated that the sentence it was about to pronounce balanced appellant’s mitigating evidence with the devastation appellant had caused to the victims and their families.