San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC067665
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jones, P.J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Tairon E. Arroliga appeals from a judgment entered after a jury convicted him of four counts of rape (Pen. Code,*fn1 § 261, subd. (a)(2)), one count of forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)), and one count of forcible digital penetration. (§ 289, subd. (a)(1).) He contends his conviction must be reversed because the trial court erred when it admitted certain evidence at his trial. We conclude the court did not commit any prejudicial error and will affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was convicted of sexually abusing a woman named Ana.*fn2
On November 7, 2008, Ana and several friends went out to dinner and then to a nightclub in San Francisco. While at the nightclub, Ana met appellant, who was a security guard at the club. Appellant and Ana spoke for several minutes and learned that they both were from Costa Rica. Appellant was dressed in a blue uniform and he carried a gun. Appellant told Ana that he was attending the police academy and that had to wait three months before he could "make the evaluation for police." Appellant gave Ana a business card that had a photograph of him in a uniform armed with a gun. He offered Ana a ride home, but she declined.
The next morning Ana sent a text message to appellant. He replied and Ana and appellant agreed to meet later that day. Appellant picked Ana up in his truck. As they drove to a restaurant in Daly City, appellant mentioned that he had been cleaning his gun that morning. He told Ana that he was waiting to graduate from the police academy and that he planned to join the Highway Patrol.
Appellant and Ana arrived at the restaurant and they had a lengthy meal together. Appellant drank two or three margaritas while Ana had a nonalcoholic drink. During the course of the meal, Ana kissed appellant about three times.
Appellant apparently read more into their meeting than Ana intended. He began to profess his love for her saying he wanted to take her to Costa Rica where they could live together. Ana told appellant he was moving too quickly.
Appellant invited Ana to his home to meet his mother and sister. He told Ana that his mother would convince her that he was a good man. Ana agreed.
When they arrived at appellant's home, appellant led Ana to a bedroom. Ana asked appellant where his mother was. Appellant replied that she was sleeping. Appellant put on some music and Ana sat on the bed. Ana looked around the room. She saw appellant's uniform but she did not see the gun that appellant had mentioned earlier. Appellant came over to Ana, put his body on top of her, and pushed her down onto the bed. Ana protested saying no repeatedly and telling appellant that "[she did not] want this." Appellant ignored Ana's complaints. He removed Ana's pants and then began to abuse her sexually for more than an hour, forcing her to kiss his penis, and penetrating her with his fingers and penis. At one point during the assault, appellant told Ana that he could "feel nothing" and the she was "like . . . a dead woman." He complained to Ana that he could not "finish." At another point, appellant reached over as if he was looking for something. Ana was afraid appellant was reaching for his gun.
Appellant grew tired eventually and Ana told him she wanted to go home. She dressed quickly and appellant gave her a tour of his home. He then drove Ana home. Appellant was angry during the ride. He again complained that he had been unable to ...