People v. Harris CA1/5

Filed 7/24/14 P. v. Harris CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139497 v. TRACY EILEEN HARRIS, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR299417) Defendant and Appellant.

Tracy Harris appeals from convictions of possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and giving false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)).1 Harris contends that evidence she possessed counterfeit bills at the time of her arrest was irrelevant and should not have been admitted. Even if it were relevant, she argues the evidence was unduly prejudicial. We reject each of these arguments and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Officer Richard Mroz stopped a car because it had an expired registration. As he spoke to the driver, Mroz noticed that none of the passengers was wearing a seatbelt, and he began to cite each of them. Harris sat in the front passenger seat and provided a false name, “Cindy Harris,” and a fake birth date. During the stop, Harris tried to walk away. Mroz made her return to the car and, after she reentered it, he saw Harris drop something on the floorboard near her feet. 1 The trial court imposed a suspended sentence, placed Harris on three years of probation and, among other terms and conditions, ordered her to serve 365 days in jail.

1

Officer Tyler Quinn joined the stop to assist Mroz. Quinn noticed Harris drop her left hand near the center console and out of view twice. Quinn reminded her to keep her hands visible both times. In his subsequent search of the vehicle, Mroz found a crumpled $10 bill and Harris’s California identification card inches apart on the floor, just in front of the front passenger’s seat, and not more than 12 inches from where Harris’s feet had been. Inside the $10 bill were two bindles of methamphetamine. When Mroz analyzed the bill outside in the rain, the ink began to run, and he suspected it was counterfeit. He also found a white plastic bag with money and checks crammed in between the front passenger seat and the center console. Mroz noticed some of the currency in the bag had the same serial number as the $10 dollar bill with the methamphetamine found on the floor of the car. He suspected this currency was also counterfeit because each United States bill has a unique serial number. Harris was charged with forgery, possession of a controlled substance, and giving false information to a police officer. The forgery charge was dismissed before trial. Harris moved in limine to exclude evidence she possessed stolen checks and any reference to the counterfeit nature of the currency on the grounds this evidence was irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. The court excluded evidence regarding the checks but admitted evidence regarding the currency. DISCUSSION We review challenges to trial court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266.) The trial court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the “ ‘court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence.” (Evid. Code, § 350.)2 Evidence is relevant if it has a “tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact