People v. Saucedo CA5

California Court of Appeal Apr 7, 2014 No. F064722Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of a third party's prior criminal history, as such evidence constituted inadmissible propensity evidence under Evidence Code section 1101 and posed a risk of juror confusion under section 352.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of a third party's prior criminal convictions offered to prove third party culpability.
Whether the exclusion of the third party's criminal history violated the defendant's constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We find no relevance in Sanchez’s criminal history for purposes of a third party culpability defense other than to show he was likely dealing drugs on the day in question because he had done so at other points in time.”

Filed 4/7/14 P. v. Saucedo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F064722 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF257429) v.

EDWIN MANRIQUEZ SAUCEDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brett R. Alldredge, Judge. Patricia L. Watkins, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Charles A. French and John G. McLean, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and LaPorte, J.† † Judge of the Superior Court of Kings County, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

-ooOoo- Edwin Saucedo appeals from a conviction under Health and Safety Code section 11378 for possession of methamphetamine for sale. He claims the judgment must be reversed because he was denied the opportunity to present evidence of third party culpability. Alternatively, he contends the excluded evidence had strong impeachment value and should have been admitted for that purpose. We find no error and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 5, 2009, Porterville police officers executed a search warrant at a house occupied by Saucedo and another man named Alejandro Sanchez. The search yielded three bags of methamphetamine, three digital scales containing powdery residue, packaging material, and approximately $500 in cash. Saucedo and Sanchez were both arrested on suspicion of narcotics possession and sales, but Sanchez was eventually released without charges. On November 16, 2011, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an amended information charging Saucedo with possession of methamphetamine for sale. Saucedo was also accused of having suffered two prior felony convictions for possession of a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 1203, subd. (e)(4).) The matter was tried before a jury in February 2012. Motion in Limine re: Prior Convictions of Alejandro Sanchez Prior to trial, defense counsel signaled her intention to introduce evidence of Alejandro Sanchez’s prior arrests and convictions for methamphetamine-related offenses. The convictions arose from incidents which occurred in May 2008 and July 2009. The prosecution filed a motion in limine to exclude any information concerning Sanchez’s criminal background, noting the evidence would have no impeachment value since he was not scheduled to testify in the case. Defense counsel opposed the motion, arguing the prior convictions could be used as evidence of third party culpability. Saucedo’s attorney further claimed the evidence

People v. Saucedo CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief