The People v. Ortiz-Camacho CA3

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 2013 No. C070844Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's instruction regarding drug-detection dog evidence was not prejudicial, as it served to limit rather than expand the jury's use of such evidence, and any potential error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the use of drug-detection dog evidence to prove identity.
Whether a clerical error on the abstract of judgment requires correction.

Disposition. Affirmed with directions to correct the abstract of judgment.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instruction spoke to identity only so far as it told the jury not to conclude defendant was the person who committed the crime merely because a dog had alerted to the scent of drugs on money that came from the hidden compartment.”

“In any event, even if the instruction should not have been given, any error was harmless.”

Filed 9/26/13 P. v. Ortiz-Camacho CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Trinity) ----

THE PEOPLE, C070844

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 11F0220)

OSCAR EDGARDO ORTIZ-CAMACHO,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Oscar Edgardo Ortiz-Camacho of possessing a false compartment with the intent to smuggle drugs (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366.8, subd. (a)) and driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)). Sentenced to a term in state prison, defendant contends the trial court erred prejudicially by instructing the jury it could consider dog sniffing evidence to prove identity. We affirm the judgment but we direct the trial court to correct a clerical error on the abstract of judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the afternoon of September 13, 2011, California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Fred Lazo saw a dark colored Mitsubishi Galant following another car too

closely, then speeding up to 60 miles per hour, while heading eastbound on State Route 36, a “very dangerous” rural road in Trinity County. Officer Lazo conducted a traffic stop of the Mitsubishi. Officer Lazo asked the driver, defendant, for his license and registration. Defendant produced the registration, but not an American driver’s license; instead, he showed the officer a Mexican consulate card and a Mexican driver’s license, which does not permit lawful driving in the United States except for visitors from Mexico carrying Mexican passports. Defendant said he and his wife (the front seat passenger) lived in Gerber, they had been on their way to Eureka for an overnight visit with a friend, but he was now taking his wife to the hospital in Red Bluff for emergency medical treatment. When Officer Lazo offered to call an ambulance, defendant and his wife declined, and his wife soon said she felt better because she had taken her medication.1 Officer Lazo decided to tow the car because defendant lacked a valid driver’s license. As required by CHP procedure, he conducted an inventory search of the car. He detained defendant and defendant’s wife in the backseat of his patrol car. Officer Lazo found three empty plastic baggies under the front passenger seat; one had a Playboy bunny on it. In his experience, such baggies, especially when marked with symbols such as Playboy bunnies, usually contain controlled substances. Defendant and

The People v. Ortiz-Camacho CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C070844

OSCAR EDGARDO ORTIZ-CAMACHO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NICHOLSON , J.

RAYE , P. J.

MURRAY , J.

AI Brief