People v. Soto CA4/1
51 Cal.App.5th 1043
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- March 17–23, 2019: a 2008 Honda Civic was reported stolen in Riverside County and was recovered near a U.S.–Mexico port of entry when defendant Esteban Magana Soto was stopped driving it.
- Soto gave inconsistent statements to the border officer (initially claiming ownership, then admitting lies) and to a CHP investigator, claiming an acquaintance ("Aaron") asked him to drive the car to Tijuana for pay.
- Soto had no permission from the owner to drive the car; he appeared nervous and changed his story multiple times.
- CHP Investigator Cruz testified about a pattern—young people recruited to drive stolen vehicles into Mexico—and opined Soto fit that pattern based on his age, ethnicity, driving record, and cross‑border ties.
- The jury convicted Soto of unlawfully driving a vehicle (Veh. Code §10851) but acquitted him of receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code §496d).
- On appeal the court assumed, without deciding, Cruz’s pattern/opinion testimony may have been erroneously admitted but found the error harmless as to the §10851 conviction; it vacated the probation order and remanded for the trial court to consider the impact of AB 1950 (limiting felony probation to two years) on sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Soto’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CHP Investigator Cruz’s testimony about a pattern of young drivers recruited to transport stolen cars and his opinion that Soto fit the pattern | Testimony admissible under investigator’s training/experience and, if erroneous, any error was harmless | Testimony irrelevant to knowledge/intent and amounted to improper expert opinion on guilt | Court assumed possible error but held any error harmless; conviction for Veh. Code §10851 affirmed |
| Effect of AB 1950 on probation term and retroactivity (whether probation should be limited to two years) | Initially agreed AB 1950 would apply retroactively; later asked trial court get first crack at the issue (and sought leave to brief Estrada argument) | Probation term should be reduced to two years under AB 1950 | Court vacated probation order and remanded for the trial court to consider applicability of AB 1950 and to exercise sentencing discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Covarrubias, 202 Cal.App.4th 1 (2011) (criminal‑profile evidence inadmissible to prove defendant’s guilt)
- People v. Romo, 248 Cal.App.4th 682 (2016) (investigator’s opinion about a defendant’s role not necessarily improper on guilt)
- People v. Torres, 33 Cal.App.4th 37 (1995) (expert testimony unnecessary for matters within juror competence)
- People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility rulings)
- People v. Prieto, 30 Cal.4th 226 (2003) (harmless‑error standard for erroneous expert testimony)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (standard for determining whether error was prejudicial)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative statutory changes presumptively apply retroactively absent a savings clause)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (trial court should be afforded first opportunity to exercise sentencing discretion on resentencing issues)
- People v. Perez, 114 Cal.App.3d 470 (1981) (evidence of gang membership does not necessarily permit inference of conduct on a given occasion)