People v. Piocortes CA3

Filed 9/4/14 P. v. Piocortes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C073935

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F03649)

v.

NOE PIOCORTES,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury convicted defendant Noe Piocortes of furnishing methamphetamine to a minor, S.T., possessing methamphetamine, felony child abuse as to S.T., and misdemeanor child abuse, a lesser included offense, as to D.D. The jury acquitted defendant of furnishing methamphetamine to D.D. Sentenced to state prison, defendant contends the trial court deprived him of his right to a defense when the court barred him from impeaching a prosecution witness with a prior conviction for negligent discharge of a firearm, a crime of moral turpitude. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prosecution Case On January 22, 2012, defendant lived in apartment number 72 at an apartment complex on Sunrise Vista Drive in Citrus Heights. Victim S.T., aged 17, lived next door in apartment number 70. He had told defendant his age when he moved in six months before. Prosecution witness Antoine Clay lived in apartment number 68. S.T. lived with his father, but his father was not home that day. S.T. had invited his 15-year-old friend D.D. over. During the afternoon, S.T. and D.D. were drinking vodka, some inside the apartment and some outside on the balcony, where they saw defendant across the way on his balcony. S.T. asked defendant if he could buy beer for him and D.D. Defendant gave them a case of Budweiser Light. According to S.T., he had trouble recalling what happened after that because of his alcohol consumption. S.T. testified defendant came over to S.T.’s apartment and entered the kitchen, carrying a baggie that held a white powdery substance. Defendant directed S.T. to heat up a plate in the microwave and used a credit card to cut up lines of the substance on the warm plate. S.T. ingested a line; then at some point he passed out. When he testified, S.T. could not recall how many lines he had ingested. He recovered consciousness at the hospital. D.D. testified that he got drunk at S.T.’s apartment. He said they consumed a fifth of a gallon of vodka. D.D. did not remember how much beer he drank from the case defendant gave them. He talked to defendant outside on the landing between the two apartments and in S.T.’s living room, but did not know what defendant was doing in the apartment. D.D. did not see S.T. heat a plate in the microwave. D.D. knew he passed out on S.T.’s bed, but did not recall lying down on the bed. He also did not recall the police coming, or any interaction with S.T.’s neighbor, Antoine Clay. Clay testified that on the afternoon of the alleged crimes, he watched a 49ers football game on television, then took his dog outside. He saw defendant and S.T. on the