People v. Lucero

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 1998 No. B110574Published

Before: Johnson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the admission of a witness's hearsay statement to an officer was error, it was harmless, and that a lay witness may provide opinion testimony comparing a shoe to a shoe print.

Issues

Whether a witness's out-of-court statement to an officer regarding a crime scene detail is admissible as nonhearsay to explain police conduct.
Whether a non-expert witness may provide lay opinion testimony comparing a defendant's shoe to a shoe print found at a crime scene.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the witness's statement to Mundy about the suspect stepping on the counter was simply irrelevant for the nonhearsay purpose offered because it had no tendency in reason to prove any disputed issue of fact in the action.”

“The trial court's error in admitting this evidence, however, was harmless.”

“It appears however the courts in other states which have considered this question have all held such testimony is admissible.”

75 Cal.Rptr.2d 806 (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1107 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Ernie LUCERO et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. B110574. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Seven.

June 15, 1998. Review Denied September 30, 1998. Jonathan B. Steiner, Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant Lucero.

[807] Shawn O'Laughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Anacortes, WA, for Defendant and Appellant Maldonado.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Joseph P. Lee, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Certified for Partial Publication.[*]

JOHNSON, Associate Justice.

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. Co-defendant Jessica Maldonado appeals from her robbery conviction. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

A. The Gas Station Robbery

A man wearing a stocking mask entered the customer service area of a gas station in Pomona, pulled a gun and ordered the attendant to hand over the station's money. The attendant, Mohammed Islam, complied with the robber's demand. The robber then directed Islam into the storeroom and told him to stay there. After waiting a couple of minutes, Islam peeked out the storeroom door. He saw the robber, with his mask off, leap a wall into an alley. Peering over the wall, Islam saw the robber jump into an old Cadillac driven by a woman. As the pair drove away, Islam wrote down the license number.

When the police arrived, Islam described the robber as approximately six feet tall, 185 pounds, with black hair and no mustache. He described the driver as a slim blackhaired Hispanic woman in her middle thirties. Islam was sure the Cadillac was twotoned, burgundy or brown and white. He was not sure which color was on top. He wrote down the license number as 026ZVW but told the police the last two letters could have been V or B.

People v. Lucero

AI Brief

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOTES

AI Brief