People v. Acevedo CA3

Filed 10/3/25 P. v. Acevedo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

(Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100490

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR001892)

v.

ELFEGO CHAVEZ ACEVEDO,

Defendant and Appellant.

The People charged defendant Elfego Chavez Acevedo with murder. At trial, the People showed the jury surveillance video of the murder suspect approaching the victim. The People also showed the jury still frames from the surveillance video, and a police detective testified that certain dark areas visible on the suspect’s body in the grainy surveillance footage were consistent with defendant’s tattoos. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by permitting the detective to offer this opinion. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and will affirm. BACKGROUND A man carrying his shirt and displaying tattoos on his chest and the back of his neck got out of a car in front of a grocery store. He walked over to where Arturo Bent was seated outside the store and began arguing with Bent. During the argument, Bent signaled to a woman he knew to come over to him. When the woman neared Bent, he told her, “[t]his

1

guy thinks I raped his sister.” The tattooed man immediately drew a gun from his pants and shot Bent in the chest, killing him. Detective Sean Baxter from the Red Bluff Police Department investigated the murder. Witnesses told Detective Baxter that a man nicknamed “Preacher” had shot Bent. Detective Baxter asked other agencies if they knew any individuals who were known as “Preacher,” and the parole department responded that defendant was known by that nickname. Detective Baxter then obtained booking photographs of defendant from Tehama County Jail. Detective Baxter also watched the surveillance video from the grocery store, which showed a shirtless man with a gun tucked in his waistband approaching Bent’s location at the time of the shooting. The recording was grainy and dark, so Detective Baxter watched the video frame by frame. He took photographs of the still frames and enlarged and lightened the pictures using his cell phone to better show what appeared to be tattoos on the shirtless man’s body. At trial, in addition to witness testimony about the shooting, the People showed the surveillance video to the jury, with the store manager testifying to its authenticity. The People then showed the jury enlarged versions of defendant’s booking photographs and the still frames Detective Baxter had taken from the surveillance video. The prosecutor asked Detective Baxter to identify significant details in the still-frame photographs he created, and the detective pointed out tattoos on the shirtless man’s shoulders, on both sides of his upper chest, above his left nipple, across his abdominal area, and on the back of his neck. The prosecutor then asked Detective Baxter to describe the similarities between the jail booking photographs of defendant and the still-frame photographs from the shooting. Defendant’s counsel objected that the detective was giving an improper opinion that “goes farther than what we have been doing as far as potential similarities based on the officer’s viewing of these things over time.” The trial court overruled the objection. Detective Baxter stated that the blurry shapes in the still-frame photographs, although he could not