Lucero

People v. Lucero

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 538·64 Cal. App. 4th 1107·75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 806·98 Daily Journal DAR 6505·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4609
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 15, 1998B110574California1,009 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Defendant Ernie Lucero appeals from his conviction on two counts of robbery and from the finding the offenses were committed while he was on bail. Codefendant Jessica Maldonado appeals from her robbery conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Proceedings Below

Discussion

I. The Testimony of Officer George Mundy About What a Witness Told Him and the Lay Opinion Testimony of Officer William Spencer Regarding the Shoe Print, Even If Improperly Admitted, Do Not Require Reversal.

A. Officer Mundy’s Testimony That a Witness Told Him the Robber Left a Shoe Print on the Counter Was Inadmissible Whether Characterized as Hearsay or Nonhearsay.

In explaining how he happened to lift the print of a shoe from the counter at Quality Burgers, Officer Mundy testified: “I asked one of the witnesses what the suspect touched in relation to the counter and the witness pointed to certain areas and pointed to the shoe print. . . that was left by the suspect that came into the restaurant[.]” Lucero objected to this testimony as hearsay but the trial court overruled the objection on the ground the statement was not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted but to explain the conduct of…

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.