People v. Morgan CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 2016 No. B266847Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's request for judicial notice of a Florida statute regarding sex offender registration, as the defendant failed to provide evidence that he relied on that statute.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to take judicial notice of a foreign statute absent evidence of the defendant's reliance on it.
Whether the trial court erred in conditioning the admission of the foreign statute on the defendant's willingness to testify and face cross-examination regarding prior convictions.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because there was no evidence of his reliance on the Florida statute, the court was justifiably concerned that taking judicial notice of the statute would create a substantial danger of undue prejudice”

“the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding it at trial.”

Filed 6/24/16 P. v. Morgan CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B266847

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA436797) v.

CARL D. MORGAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Place, 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, Steven D. Matthews and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________________

Defendant Carl D. Morgan appeals from the judgment of conviction for failure to 1 update his registration as a sex offender. (Pen. Code, § 290.012, subd. (a).) The judgment is affirmed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted of a sex crime in Florida which, were this crime committed in California, would be an offense requiring registration as a sex offender. Upon moving from Florida to Los Angeles, defendant registered as a sex offender with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) on January 30, 2014. He updated his registration after obtaining a new cell phone number on July 1, 2014. Defendant’s birthday is January 24. Under section 290.012, subdivision (a), defendant must update his registration “annually, within five working days of his 2 . . . birthday.” In early 2015, Alexander Tan of LAPD’s Registration Enforcement Compliance Team researched the California Sex and Arson Registry (CSAR) database and found no updates to defendant’s registration after July 1, 2014. Based on his research, Tan concluded that defendant had failed to update his registration. Defendant was charged with violation of section 290.012, subdivision (a). The case proceeded to jury trial. Tan testified at trial as to the factual grounds for the alleged violation. Tan authenticated defendant’s initial registration form, dated January 30, 2014 (exhibit 2), and updated form, dated July 1, 2014 (exhibit 1).

People v. Morgan CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B266847

CARL D. MORGAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MANELLA, J.

COLLINS, J.

AI Brief