Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Espinoza

P. v. Espinoza

Filed 9/7/06 P. v. Espinoza CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

TRINIDAD LEON ESPINOZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

B185433

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. VA084121)

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Higa, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions.

Norton & Melnik, Todd Melnick, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and Appellant Trinidad Leon Espinoza (defendant) was charged with 11 counts[1] of sexual misconduct with three minors under the age of 14, each of whom was his great-grandchild. At trial, the prosecution called each of the children to testify and introduced certain evidence that had been recovered from a search of defendant's home, including an adult magazine and several suggestively labeled lotions or creams. During a recess after the close of evidence, but prior to deliberations, an observer of the trial referred to defendant as her neighbor, â€

Description	Defendant and Appellant was charged with 11 counts of sexual misconduct with three minors under the age of 14, each of whom was his great grandchild. At trial, the prosecution called each of the children to testify and introduced certain evidence that had been recovered from a search of defendant's home, including an adult magazine and several suggestively labeled lotions or creams. During a recess after the close of evidence, but prior to deliberations, an observer of the trial referred to defendant as her neighbor, in the presence of several jurors. Court hold that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial based on the alleged juror bias or misconduct and did not commit prejudicial error in admitting evidence of the adult magazine and lotions.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.