P. v. Juliar CA6

Filed 4/23/13 P. v. Juliar CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, H037625 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 211467, C1089650 & CC806462) v.

JEFFREY SCOTT JULIAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeffrey Scott Juliar was found guilty by a jury of theft and securities violations. On appeal he contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by instructing the jury on the doctrine of adoptive admissions. We agree that the evidence cited by respondent to justify the instruction did not fall within the doctrine, because the statements defendant adopted were not offered for their truth but as evidence of false representations made by defendant to his victims. However, we cannot say that the error was prejudicial, since the instruction appears to have been merely superfluous and unlikely to affect the jury’s verdict in any way harmful to defendant. Accordingly, we will affirm. BACKGROUND An information filed February 5, 2009, charged defendant with two counts of grand theft in violation of Penal Code sections 484 through 487, subdivision (a). An

indictment filed November 10, 2009, further charged one count of selling an unqualified security (Corp. Code, §§ 25110-25440, subd. (a)), two counts of making untrue statements and material omissions in connection with an offer to sell a security (Corp. Code, §§ 25401-25540, subd. (b)), and one count of using a device, scheme, and artifice to defraud another in the sale of a security (Corp. Code, § 25441). Prior to trial the prosecutor sought and obtained dismissal of the fraudulent devices charge (count four of the indictment) on the ground that it was going to be pursued by Alameda County authorities. The parties agreed to consolidate the remaining charges for trial and to incorporate them, for purposes of instructing the jury, in a single consolidated “information.” The gist of the prosecutor’s case was that defendant obtained funds from two couples named Piekarski and Hernandez (the purchasers) by taking money from them in exchange for high-interest promissory notes payable by a company known as BluQuest, of which defendant was a principal. BluQuest purchased residential properties, apparently on speculation, and defendant assured the purchasers that their notes would be secured by deeds of trust on specific properties. In fact the deeds of trust on the Piekarski and Hernandez notes were never recorded, and there was not enough equity in the hypothecated properties to secure the notes. After BluQuest defaulted, both couples surreptitiously recorded conversations with defendant, transcripts of which were admitted in evidence, in which he could be understood to ratify false statements about the security of their investments. The jury convicted defendant on all counts, and the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of two years’ imprisonment.1 This timely appeal followed.