People v. Crawford CA3

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 2013 No. C071437Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph of the defendant holding a gun, as the evidence was relevant to connect the defendant to the robbery and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice.

Issues

Did the trial court abuse its discretion under Evidence Code section 352 by admitting a photograph of the defendant holding a gun?
Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the photograph as improper character evidence under Evidence Code section 1101?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court concluded it was highly probative because it showed defendant possessed a gun similar in attributes to the one that the husband had described.”

“The relevance lay in defendant’s possession of a similar implement, regardless of whether either of them was a real gun or not.”

“We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdicts would not be different if the photo evidence were to be excluded.”

Filed 11/14/13 P. v. Crawford CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C071437

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09F07975)

ERIN CRAWFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

In May 2012, a jury found defendant Erin Crawford guilty of second degree robbery, during which he personally used a gun. The trial court sentenced him to 12 years in state prison.

Defendant’s focus on appeal centers on a photographic exhibit of him, in which he appears to be holding a gun. He contends the trial court abused its discretion under Evidence Code section 3521 in admitting the photo into evidence, and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue other bases for excluding it. We shall affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Evidence Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In August 2009, the pregnant victim and her husband had returned to their home after an outing at about 9:45 p.m. They parked the car in their stall immediately in front of their apartment, and began to unload the trunk. As her husband handed her purse to the victim, two men approached them from behind. Both were masked. One of them snatched the purse from the victim with sufficient force to bruise the shoulder on which she had started to place the strap. The robber holding the purse jumped over a nearby fence. The remaining robber was unsuccessful in his first attempt to scale the fence. As the husband started to approach him, the second robber pulled up his shirt. The victim heard him tell her husband that he had a gun, but did not see one. Her husband, who did not recall either of the robbers saying anything, could see what appeared to be a “silver- looking gun” (of the type that loads from the bottom with a magazine and has a slide on the top) tucked into the second robber’s waistband. The second robber pulled it out slightly, indicating that the husband should not pursue him. The armed robber then successfully jumped over the fence.

People v. Crawford CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C071437

ERIN CRAWFORD,

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

BUTZ , J.

HULL , J.

AI Brief