People v. Pelton CA3

DISCUSSION

I Admission of the Spreadsheet and Ahern’s Testimony Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting AT&T employee John Ahern’s testimony and a spreadsheet Ahern prepared for trial regarding the replacement costs of the catalytic converters. He further contends the error requires reversal of the grand theft convictions and, because no other evidence showed the value of the catalytic converters exceeding $950, an element of grand theft, a retrial on the grant theft counts is barred by the double jeopardy clause. We agree that the admission of the spreadsheet and Ahern’s testimony was prejudicial error but conclude the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial. A. Additional Background Grand theft is committed when the property’s value exceeds $950. (§ 487, subd. (a).) Defense counsel moved in limine to exclude, among other things, Ahern’s testimony, and a spreadsheet he prepared relating to the costs of replacing the catalytic converters as inadmissible hearsay. Ahern was an area manager of fleet operations at AT&T who oversaw vehicle maintenance and repairs in California and Nevada. He decided the priority of repairs,

3 oversaw AT&T’s maintenance and…