People v. Espinoza CA6

Filed 10/13/15 P. v. Espinoza CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H039787 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. CC634285, C1116416) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION PEDRO ESPINOZA, AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 15, 2015, be modified in the following particulars: 1. On page 15, line 1 of the first full paragraph, the phrase “other than the fact that she provided more detail about the incident at trial than during her initial reports” is inserted after the phrase “was not a weaker case,” so that the sentence reads as follows: The case involving R. Doe was not a weaker case other than the fact that she provided more detail about the incident at trial than during her initial reports. 2. On page 19, line 4, change the phrase “unwilling to discuss the case,” to “unwilling to ‘elaborate’ on ‘the details’ of ‘what was in her report,’ ” so the sentence reads as follows: A defense investigator had spoken to Erwin, who was unwilling to “elaborate” on “the details” of “what was in her report.”

3. On page 20, line 5, the phrase “a personal opinion about the witness” is changed to “a personal opinion about the witness’s reputation,” so that the sentence reads as follows: However, as the Attorney General points out, a person who renders reputation testimony must have a personal opinion about the witness’s reputation. 4. On page 21, line 15 of the first paragraph, the following is added to the parenthetical case citation: “see also People v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 488, 491 [juvenile court has ‘the exclusive authority to determine when juvenile records will be released’ because the Legislature has determined ‘that the juvenile court has both the “ ‘sensitivity and expertise’ to make decisions about access to juvenile records” ’]; T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 778; cf. J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1338 [a Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827 petition ‘has long been recognized as an appropriate vehicle to protect both the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the state’s interest in confidentiality of the files’]” so the parenthetical citation reads as follows: (Cimarusti, supra, at p. 805; see also People v. Superior Court (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 488, 491 [juvenile court has “the exclusive authority to determine when juvenile records will be released” because the Legislature has determined “that the juvenile court has both the ‘ “sensitivity and expertise” to make decisions about access to juvenile records’ ”]; T.N.G. v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 767, 778; cf. J.E. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1338 [a Welfare section 827 petition “has long been recognized as an appropriate vehicle to protect both the defendant’s right to a fair trial and the state’s interest in confidentiality of the files”].) 5. On page 41, line 7, the phrase “her own opinion about A. Doe’s character for truthfulness” is changed to “her own opinion about A. Doe’s character or reputation for truthfulness,” so that the sentence reads as follows: As we have explained, it was not clear that the “chronic liar” opinion came from Erwin or that Erwin had her own opinion about A. Doe’s character or reputation for truthfulness.