In re K.B.

People v. K.B.

Good Law
190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 287·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 627·238 Cal. App. 4th 989
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 20, 2015A140960California3,068 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ruvolo, J.

I.

INTRODUCTION

On October 23, 2013, the San Francisco County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant, age 17, with two counts of possessing firearms. (Pen. Code, § 29610.) On November 19, 2013, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition.

Appellant has appealed, claiming (1) the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that he violated Penal Code section 29610; (2) the trial court erred in admitting incriminating photographs over his objection on the ground they were not properly authenticated; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to give expert testimony about the make and model of the recovered firearms without first qualifying him as an expert; and (4) the court omitted required information about the maximum term of confinement and custody credits from the dispositional order.

In the published portion of this opinion we apply our Supreme Court’s recent guidance on authentication of electronic evidence in People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258 [ 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 637 , 326 P.3d 239 ] (Goldsmith), and conclude there was no error in admitting the photographic evidence in this case.…

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.