People v. Loredo CA1/1

Filed 5/29/15 P. v. Loredo CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140364 v. SUSANA LOREDO, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 220507) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Susana Loredo attempted to purchase merchandise worth approximately $4,400 with a credit account she fraudulently opened in someone else’s name, and a jury convicted her of five felonies, including identity theft and burglary. On appeal, her only claim is that her convictions must be reversed because the trial court refused to give the jury a pinpoint instruction on duress. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2013, Loredo applied for a credit account at a Neiman Marcus outlet store in Livermore. She approached a sales associate, asked to apply for credit, and presented a driver’s license and a credit card that both falsely identified her as a woman named F.B. Loredo’s application was approved, and she received a referral slip that could be used as a temporary card. The sales associate who helped her open the account testified that Loredo smiled during their interaction and did not appear “distressed,” “nervous,” or

1

“afraid.” Loredo did try to “rush” the associate, however, and after opening the account, she told the associate that “she had a family emergency and she had to leave.” Later that day, Loredo went to a Neiman Marcus store in San Francisco and tried to buy about $4,400 worth of men’s shoes with the referral slip. The sales associate helping her contacted the loss-prevention department to obtain the account number, which was not on the slip, and was told to “stall.” Loredo remained calm while she waited, although she was “[p]erspiring a lot.” Meanwhile, a loss-prevention manager looked up the account using F.B.’s name and discovered it had been opened earlier that day. He called the telephone number associated with the account and eventually reached F.B., who told him that she had not opened the account or authorized anyone to do so on her behalf. The sales associate completed the purchase, as he was directed to do, and the manager then approached Loredo and asked her to accompany him back to the loss- prevention office. She agreed to do so, and she soon confessed that she was not F.B. The fraudulent driver’s license and credit card in F.B.’s name, along with Loredo’s own driver’s license and Social Security card, were found in her possession. Loredo told the manager that a man had given her the counterfeit forms of identification and had brought her to the San Francisco store. She said she had attempted to buy men’s shoes because “ ‘[t]hat’s what [she] was supposed to buy’ ” and that she would have received money had the purchase been successful. Another loss-prevention employee testified that Loredo said the same man “made [Loredo] do it.” After her arrest, Loredo told a police officer that “she messed up” and had “recently joined a crime ring that steals people’s identities.” The prosecution also presented evidence of prior misconduct. A former loss- prevention officer for JCPenney’s testified that in March 2009 Loredo was caught stealing clothes from a Cupertino store by hiding them in her jacket. Loredo told the employee that she needed the items to cover her rent. At trial, Loredo testified that she was forced to commit the fraud. She began by recounting a long history of physical and verbal abuse by her husband, with whom she