People v. Monroe CA4/1

Filed 11/18/25 P. v. Monroe CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085630

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD304279)

FELICIA MONROE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed. Sally Patrone, 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, Steve Oetting and Paige B. Hazard, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Felicia Monroe appeals from a conviction of misdemeanor petty theft, contending the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the victim’s acts of moral turpitude for purposes of impeachment. Resolving this matter by

memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. I. In July 2024, Monroe got into an altercation with Christina O. that resulted in Monroe pulling Christina off her bicycle. As a result, Christina’s two bottles of liquor and cell phone scattered on the ground. Monroe picked up these items, placed them under the driver’s seat of her car parked across the street, and locked the doors. Christina flagged down a police officer driving by. After speaking with Christina and Monroe, the officer searched the front driver’s side of Monroe’s car, where he found Christina’s cell phone and the two liquor bottles. Monroe was arrested. Before trial, Monroe moved to admit, for impeachment purposes, evidence that Christina had a pending misdemeanor theft case and had failed to appear for arraignment in that case. Monroe offered examples of inconsistent statements Christina made to police officers regarding her possession of an alleged stolen moped along with several photos of the moped itself and the tools used to operate it without a key. The People argued that admitting the evidence in the manner Monroe proposed would be like holding a “theft trial within a theft trial” because it required “an outside witness,” “additional officers,” and “photographs.” The trial court acknowledged the pending misdemeanor charge and failure to appear were, if proven, acts of moral turpitude and potentially relevant for the purpose of impeaching Christina’s character for honesty. The court denied the motion, however, finding the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the undue consumption of time presenting it would require and the risk of confusing the issues for the jury.