People v. Rodriguez CA4/3

Filed 7/14/25 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G064309

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF2304427)

DAVID ANDREW RODRIGUEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Frederick Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Reversed and remanded. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A.

Sevidal, Randall D. Einhorn, Susan Elizabeth Miller and Daniel Hilton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * This appeal stems from David Andrew Rodriguez’s (Rodriguez) conviction for robbery. The facts underlying the robbery are not in dispute. The victim was on the phone when an assailant approached him, knocked him down, took his phone, and fled. The issue at trial was the assailant’s identity. During his testimony, the victim could not identify Rodriguez as the assailant. However, the prosecution offered evidence that the victim made an in-field identification of Rodriguez to an officer who did not testify. A different officer, who was not present during the in-field identification, relayed the in-field identification officer’s statements to the jury. Over objection, the court admitted the identification at trial. All parties agree, as do we, this was error. Because we cannot conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we reverse.