MAGLAYA

People v. MAGLAYA

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 1604·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1646·2003 Daily Journal DAR 12094·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 155·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9604
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 4, 2003C043236California1,451 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

In this case we hold that the trial court properly allowed a nonexpert police officer to testify that shoeprints found in the dirt at the scene of a crime were “similar” to the pattern on the soles of defendant’s shoes.

Defendant Jayson Allen Maglaya was convicted by a jury of first degree attempted burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 459; further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code). Defendant also admitted a prior serious felony and prior prison term. He was sentenced to seven years in state prison. Defendant appeals, claiming the court erred in allowing the lay testimony of a police officer regarding the similarity of footprints found at the scene of the crime to the soles of shoes seized from defendant’s residence. He also alleges that misconduct by law enforcement officials deprived him of a fair trial.

In the published portion of the opinion, we reject defendant’s attack on the footprint testimony. In the unpublished portion, we reject defendant’s other claim of error. We shall therefore affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

At 1:10 a.m. on June 24, 2002, Paul Hogan was sleeping in the living room of his house when he heard a “scraping or a sliding” noise…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.