P. v. Valle CA2/6

Filed 6/4/13 P. v. Valle CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B239524 (Super. Ct. No. 1368264) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

KAREN VALLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Karen Valle (Valle) appeals her felony conviction for attempted dissuasion of a witness by force or threat. We reject her challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to the trial court's instructional and evidentiary rulings. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2010, Valle's husband, from whom she had separated for a time, was charged with falsely imprisoning, forcibly raping and sexually penetrating Tamara N. (Tamara). Nine days after her husband's preliminary hearing was rescheduled, Valle went to the grocery store where Tamara worked as a checker. Valle waited patiently to get to the front of Tamara's check-out line. Once there, Valle leaned in close and called Tamara a "sick bitch" and a "fucking bitch." She also told her, "You're going to die" and "I'm going to kill you." Tamara believed

that Valle had a knife, but gave different accounts of how Valle held it and no knife could be seen in the store's video. The People charged Valle with attempting to dissuade a witness by force or threat (in violation of Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1))1 and making a criminal threat (in violation of § 422). The People also alleged that Valle personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon (in violation of former § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury found Valle guilty of attempted dissuasion of a witness, but found the weapon enhancement not true. The jury hung on the criminal threat counts. The trial court placed Valle on three years' formal probation, including 120 days of county jail. DISCUSSION I. Sufficiency of the Evidence Valle argues that her conviction must be overturned because there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that she intended to dissuade Tamara not to testify at the upcoming preliminary hearing. Valle contends that her threats were generic and reflect, at worst, a "strong" and "manic" "dislike" of Tamara that pre-dated (and thus had nothing to do with) the charges against Valle's husband. Our review is limited to whether the jury's verdict is supported by "'. . . substantial evidence . . . from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the prosecution sustained its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. . . .'" (People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 194.) We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assess solely whether the supporting evidence is "'. . . reasonable, inherently credible, and of solid value . . . .'" (Ibid.) There is substantial evidence that Valle intended to dissuade Tamara from testifying against Valle's husband. Valle knew about the prosecution of her