People v. Lucero

[1109]

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

Defendant Ernie Lucero appeals from his conviction on two counts of robbery and from the finding the offenses were committed while he was on bail. Codefendant Jessica Maldonado appeals from her robbery conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

*

Discussion

I.

The Testimony of Officer George Mundy About What a Witness Told Him and the Lay Opinion Testimony of Officer William Spencer Regarding the Shoe Print, Even If Improperly Admitted, Do Not Require Reversal.

A.

Officer Mundy’s Testimony That a Witness Told Him the Robber Left a Shoe Print on the Counter Was Inadmissible Whether Characterized as Hearsay or Nonhearsay.

In explaining how he happened to lift the print of a shoe from the counter at Quality Burgers, Officer Mundy testified: “I asked one of the witnesses what the suspect touched in relation to the counter and the witness pointed to certain areas and pointed to the shoe print. . . that was left by the suspect that came into the restaurant[.]” Lucero objected to this testimony as hearsay but the trial court overruled the objection on the ground the statement was not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to explain the conduct of the officer.

The People concede if the statement was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—the robber stepped on the counter and left the shoe print—it would be inadmissible hearsay. The People, however, urge us to accept the trial court’s rationale the evidence was admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of “showing [Officer Mundy’s] good faith or the reasonableness of his conduct.” In support of this argument, the People cite

People

v.

King

(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 1, 4-5 [294 P.2d 972] which upheld the introduction of statements made to an officer by a confidential informant on the ground the statements were admitted for the nonhearsay purpose of establishing “reasonable cause to justify an arrest.”