People v. Lopez
129 Cal. Rptr. 3d 583
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Daniel Lopez was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary (count one), second degree burglary (count four), use of a stolen access card (count five), and petty theft (count six).
- The jury found true that a non-accomplice, Deborah Mendicino, was present during the first degree burglary.
- The trial court imposed concurrent terms for counts one and four and consecutive on-bail enhancement, plus misdemeanor sentences for counts five and six.
- On appeal, Lopez challenged CALCRIM No. 376, the admission of prior uncharged misconduct, and argued that count five needed a section 654 stay; the court reversed count one and remanded.
- Evidence at trial included: Mendicino’s stolen credit card used at 7-Eleven; a pink flashlight found in Lopez’s car; and testimony tying Lopez to the Mendicino burglary and related offenses.
- The appellate court concluded the prior uncharged acts evidence was inadmissible as to the first degree burglary and that the section 654 issue did not apply to stay count five.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CALCRIM No. 376 and due process | Lopez argues instruction lowers burden by permitting inference from possession of recently stolen property. | Lopez contends instruction misstates law and allows improper inference from unrelated acts. | Instruction does not lower burden; proper if corroboration exists. |
| Admissibility of prior uncharged acts | Evidence of prior misconduct was probative of intent for Mendicino burglary. | Admission was highly prejudicial and lacked substantial probative value. | Admission was error as to count one; prejudicial and not substantially probative; reversible. |
| Section 654 stay for counts five and six | Counts involve an indivisible course of conduct; stay appropriate. | Multiple objectives and temporally separated acts; no stay required. | No stay with respect to count five; offenses considered divisible in time. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193 (Cal. 2004) (standard for reviewing jury instructions de novo)
- People v. Ramos, 163 Cal.App.4th 1082 (Cal. App. 2008) (interpretation of jury instructions; fair trial considerations)
- Ewoldt v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 380 (Cal. 1994) (admissibility of uncharged acts to prove intent; substantial probative value vs prejudice)
- People v. Snyder, 112 Cal.App.4th 1200 (Cal. App. 2003) (CALJIC 2.15-like standard for inference from possession of stolen property)
- Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1973) (permissible inference of guilt from possession of stolen goods with corroboration)