People v. Benitez CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 5, 2014G048299California5,415 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fybel, J.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Juan Junior Benitez was convicted of robbery and assault in connection with two different events. On appeal, he argues the admission of expert opinion testimony and lay opinion testimony prejudicially harmed him. We disagree. Defendant also argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to sever the trial of the robbery-related charges from the assault-related charges. We conclude the trial court did not err in denying the motion, and the joinder of the two sets of crimes for trial did not have a substantial, injurious effect on the jury’s verdict. Therefore, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The November 2011 Incident In November 2011, Angel Balladares and two of his friends were hanging out in an area behind their school in the City of Orange. Defendant drove up in a blue Scion; he had one male passenger in his car. They asked Balladares and his friends, “[i]f we were from somewhere,” which Balladares believed meant if they were in a gang. Balladares responded, “we don’t claim.” One of Balladares’s friends, nicknamed “Trooper,” told defendant he was from “Criminals.” Trooper called defendant and defendant’s friend “cravers” (a term of disrespect toward…

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.