People v. Romo
248 Cal. App. 4th 682
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Sergio Ignacio Romo was convicted by a jury of importing and possessing heroin and methamphetamine for sale after CBP officers found 2.961 kg heroin and 8.457 kg methamphetamine concealed in fabricated compartments in his Ford Fiesta at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.
- Canine alerted to rocker panel; officers removed seats and spent hours extracting 19 packages attached by strings.
- Defendant denied knowledge (claimed he bought the car recently in Tijuana and took it to a mechanic); agents testified about indicia of knowing smuggling (location/quantity of drugs, recent car ownership, lack of prior searches).
- Government experts opined defendant was not a "blind mule." Defense retained an expert who advanced two hypotheses, including that defendant bought a car already loaded with drugs or that mechanics loaded it.
- On appeal Romo raised: alleged prosecutorial misconduct for comments about the presumption of innocence during rebuttal; evidentiary errors (hearsay and improper expert opinion that defendant was not a blind mule); and entitlement to additional presentence custody/conduct credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — remarks that presumption of innocence "goes away" as evidence is presented | People: prosecutor’s comments were rhetorical about weight of evidence and did not misstate law where jury had been properly instructed | Romo: remarks improperly reversed presumption before verdict and constituted misconduct | Court: No reversible misconduct; statements were not an incorrect statement of law given instructions and controlling precedents, though such remarks are discouraged |
| Admission of agent testimony that the Fiesta model was a "Mexico-only" version (hearsay/foundation) | People: testimony was admissible and foundation laid; relevance established | Romo: testimony was hearsay and lacked proper foundation | Court: Romo forfeited hearsay claim by objecting only on relevance/foundation at trial; even assuming counsel deficient for not objecting on hearsay, no prejudice shown |
| Expert opinion that defendant was not a "blind mule" (opinion/comment on ultimate issue) | People: agent’s opinion admissible as expert assessment based on specialized facts; did not state guilt | Romo: expert improperly opined on ultimate issue of guilt/knowledge | Court: Forfeited by no objection; opinion admissible because it assisted jury and did not directly state guilt; not improper under Evidence Code 801/805 |
| Presentence custody/conduct credits computation | People: agreed correction warranted | Romo: requested seven additional days credit due to misdated arrest in probation report (arrest Nov 22 vs. listed Nov 25) | Court: Remanded to correct judgment and abstract to 168 days actual + 168 days conduct credit (total 336 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Goldberg, 161 Cal.App.3d 170 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prosecutor may rhetorically state presumption yields to proven evidence where jury otherwise properly instructed)
- People v. Booker, 51 Cal.4th 141 (Cal.) (approving Goldberg; similar prosecutorial argument not reversible where jury properly instructed)
- People v. Dowdell, 227 Cal.App.4th 1388 (Cal. Ct. App.) (comments that the presumption "is over" and that defendant "got his fair trial" were clear misstatements; counsel should have objected)
- People v. Abel, 53 Cal.4th 891 (Cal.) (preservation/forfeiture rule for objections to evidence and scope of appellate review)
- People v. Demetrulias, 39 Cal.4th 1 (Cal.) (requires timely, specific objection to preserve evidentiary claims on appeal)