Moore

People v. Moore

Good Law
150 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1256·2012 D.A.R. 16·211 Cal. App. 4th 1179
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 2012No. B236858California3,856 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aldrich, J.

*1182 Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Jesse Moore appeals his convictions for attempted second degree robbery and misdemeanor vandalism. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude a probation condition prohibiting Moore from owning, possessing, or using dangerous or deadly weapons is not unconstitutionally vague, and need not be modified to include a knowledge requirement. In the unpublished portion, we conclude the evidence was sufficient and the prosecutor did not commit prejudicial misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Facts.

a. People’s evidence.

On October 15, 2010, at approximately midnight, Juan Manuel Pineda Hernandez 1 was in Alhambra, walking home from work. Moore approached Pineda and asked for a cigarette. Pineda, whose first language was Spanish, spoke “a little” English and understood Moore’s request. Pineda smelled alcohol on Moore’s breath. Pineda told Moore he did not speak English and did not have any cigarettes. Moore became irate and raised his voice, saying, “ ‘talk to me in English.’ ” Pineda reiterated that he did not speak English. Moore replied, “ ‘Fuck you. I’ll kick your ass,’…

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.