People v. Morro CA4/3

Filed 2/27/23 P. v. Morro CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G060703

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20HF1170)

VINCENT MICHAEL MORRO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Scott A. Steiner, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Martin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Vincent Michael Morro appeals from the judgment convicting him of making a criminal threat to a neighbor. (Pen. Code, § 422, subd. (a).) Morro was acquitted of a second charge alleging assault with a deadly weapon, i.e., his car. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).) Morro argues his conviction must be reversed because the court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of a prior incident in which he was alleged to have also used his car as a means of assaulting a different neighbor. We disagree and affirm the judgment. Morro’s current contention, that the evidence was substantially more prejudicial than probative, and the trial court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise, was not made at trial and is consequently waived. In any event, we find the argument unpersuasive. The prosecution’s theory was that Morro made the threat he was convicted of making—as well as the charged assault he was acquitted of—because he was angry at the victim whom he believed had reported an earlier incident to police. Indeed, there was significant evidence that Morro’s statements to the victim in connection with the charged crimes were laced with accusations that the victim had “call[ed] the cops” on him and “put [him] in jail.” As such, evidence related to the prior incident Morro was referring to was relevant to establish Morro’s motive and intent related to the charged crimes. We find no error.