People v. Aguilera CA2/8

California Court of Appeal Sep 3, 2015 No. B256163Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the prosecutor's opening statement was argumentative, it did not constitute prejudicial misconduct, and any potential harm was cured by the trial court's prompt admonition to the jury.

Issues

Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during opening statements by referencing the defendant's refusal to plead guilty.
Whether the prosecutor's remarks constituted improper vouching for the strength of the evidence or the defendant's guilt.
Whether the prosecutor's comments improperly shifted the burden of proof or violated the defendant's right to remain silent.
Whether the trial court's curative admonition was sufficient to mitigate any prejudice from the prosecutor's argumentative remarks.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court found the prosecutor’s comment to be argumentative but denied the mistrial motion.”

“The jury is admonished to disregard it in its entirety. And, furthermore, the court is striking it from the record in this case except to the extent necessary to retain it for whatever purposes that may serve.”

“Assuming the prosecutor committed misconduct, Aguilera was not prejudiced under either standard.”

Filed 9/3/15 P. v. Aguilera CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B256163

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA132656) v.

LAURENCIO AGUILERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patrick T. Meyers, Judge. Affirmed.

G. Martin Velez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Yun K. Lee, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________

On March 25, 2014, a jury convicted defendant Laurencio Aguilera of possessing a controlled substance. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).) On April 22, 2014, in a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found two strike priors pursuant to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (d)1 and Section 1170.12, subdivision (b) to be true. The trial court sentenced the defendant to four years in state prison by imposing the middle term of two years doubled by a strike prior. Aguilera contends the judgment should be reversed because the prosecutor committed misconduct during her opening statement. We affirm. FACTS On November 12, 2013, Deputy Carlos Lopez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department conducted a routine vehicle traffic stop for failing to signal when turning. The vehicle pulled over in a commercial district near a medical building. Deputy Lopez was joined by Deputy Robledo who came to the scene in a separate patrol vehicle. Both deputies got out to investigate. Deputy Lopez approached on the driver’s side while Deputy Robledo approached from the passenger side. At that point, Deputy Lopez observed Aguilera standing adjacent to the stopped vehicle about 25 feet away. Aguilera looked in Deputy Lopez’s direction, appeared nervous, and started to walk away. As he did so, Aguilera tossed an object onto the sidewalk. Deputy Lopez described the object as a bindle. Deputy Lopez recovered the bindle. He found within a plastic baggie containing a crystal-like substance. The substance was 0.07 grams of crystalline solid containing methamphetamine.

People v. Aguilera CA2/8

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B256163

LAURENCIO AGUILERA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GRIMES, J.

AI Brief