People v. Taylor CA1/4

Filed 9/1/16 P. v. Taylor CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A146259 v. WILLIAM A. TAYLOR, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. Nos. 223904 & 224379) Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION In this government appeal, the prosecution argues that the superior court erred in granting a Penal Code section 995 motion1 to set aside three counts of the information charging respondent William Taylor with commercial burglary. The superior court granted the motion based upon its conclusion the magistrate improperly took judicial notice of William Taylor’s birth date, race, and gender from the court’s computer information database which was not shown to be accurate or reliable. We conclude the magistrate properly took judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 452.5, and we reverse.

1 All subsequent references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise identified.

1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Taylor allegedly committed two burglaries within six days of each other in March 2015. The first burglary, which is the subject of this appeal, occurred on March 17, 2015.2 A suspect, alleged to be Taylor, entered the Wilkes Bashford store on Sutter Street in San Francisco by using a metal pipe to shatter a glass panel on the main entrance door. The police reviewed surveillance footage that showed the suspect using a mirror to smash a jewelry display case inside the store. The suspect took more than $100,000 worth of jewelry. A responding officer noticed in the surveillance footage that the suspect was not wearing gloves; the officer also observed possible latent fingerprints on the display case. At the preliminary hearing, one of the police crime scene investigation unit (CSI) officers, Rosalyn Rouede, explained that she had lifted two fingerprints and two palm prints from the display case. There was no match for the fingerprints and one palm print, but the final palm print was a match to Taylor. A second CSI officer, Lyn O’Connor, conducted the analysis of the palm print from the burglary scene (exhibit four) to a “known print” for William Taylor with a birth date of May 14, 1977 (exhibit five). Sergeant O’Connor determined that the prints matched. Taylor’s counsel objected that there was no foundation for the date of birth. O’Connor testified that Officer Rouede provided her with a name, date of birth, and RAP sheet number when she asked her to do the comparison. Sergeant O’Connor then identified the latent print envelope that contained the case number and the name William Taylor (exhibit four). The prosecutor asked defense counsel to stipulate that the known prints (exhibit five) belonged to Taylor, and counsel declined. The prosecutor moved to admit them as a business record under Evidence Code section 1271. To lay a foundation, the prosecutor