People v. Bourque CA5

Filed 12/26/24 P. v. Bourque CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087166 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF190843A) v.

AARON THOMAS BOURQUE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John D. Oglesby, Judge. Gina C. Teddington, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Carly Orozco, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Fain, J.†

† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

Defendant Aaron Thomas Bourque was charged with buying or receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code,1 § 496d, subd. (a)). The information further alleged he was previously convicted of criminal threats and attempted robbery, both qualifying “strikes” under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(e)). Following a trial, the jury found defendant guilty as charged and the value of the stolen vehicle exceeded $950. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the strike priors. Defendant received a six-year prison sentence. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court “prejudicially erred by giving CALCRIM No. 362 consciousness of guilt instruction, which unfairly and improperly singled out [his] testimony and violated his right to due process.” (Some capitalization omitted.) He also asks us to review the materials disclosed at an in camera hearing and determine whether the court properly ruled on his Pitchess2 motion. We conclude: (1) the purported instructional error did not prejudice defendant; and (2) the court’s ruling on defendant’s Pitchess motion did not constitute an abuse of discretion. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. Prosecution’s case-in-chief On July 1, 2022, at approximately 2:12 a.m., officers Alexander and Hearn of the Bakersfield Police Department were in their patrol vehicle when they observed a “mid- 2000s white Chevrolet [Silverado] pickup truck driving through the parking lot” of a gas station. Defendant, who was driving the truck, parked next to a pump and exited “in a northeast direction.” The officers pulled up behind the truck to “read the license plate and conduct a records check” because vehicle thefts—“specifically Chevy Silverados”—