California Court of Appeals, First District, Fourth Division
In re K.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
K.B., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]
San Francisco County No. JW126082 Superior Court, Hon. Suzanne Ramos Bolanos Trial Judge.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Suzanne M. Morris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Eric D. Share and Christina vom Saal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
RUVOLO, P. J.
On October 23, 2013, the San Francisco County District Attorney filed a petition charging appellant, age 17, with two counts of possessing firearms. (Pen. Code, § 29610.) On November 19, 2013, after a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition.
Appellant has appealed, claiming: (1) the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that he violated Penal Code section 29610; (2) the trial court erred in admitting incriminating photographs over his objection on the ground they were not properly authenticated; (3) the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to give expert testimony about the make and model of the recovered firearms without first qualifying him as an expert; and (4) the court omitted required information about the maximum term of confinement and custody credits from the dispositional order.
In the published portion of this opinion we apply our Supreme Court’s recent guidance on authentication of electronic evidence in People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258 [172 Cal.Rptr.3d 637, 326 P.3d 239] (Goldsmith), and conclude there was no error in admitting the photographic evidence in this case. In the unpublished portion of this opinion we reject the balance of appellant’s assignments of error, except we agree with the parties that the matter must be remanded for the limited purpose of supplying the mandatory information in the dispositional order that was omitted. However, in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
San Francisco Police Officers Dave Johnson and Eduard Ochoa testified that they were on routine patrol on October 21, 2013. Throughout that day, Officer Ochoa scanned Instagram, a social media Web site, looking for postings. Officer Ochoa was the “Instagram officer” in his department and had been so for three or four years. His training and experience had taught him “how to monitor and track individuals through Instagram.”
Officer Ochoa “was familiar with appellant from prior firearm investigations.” He testified, “I saw [appellant], [D.H.] and [Marquis] Mendez, all possessing a firearm at one point or another in these [Instagram] photographs. I knew [appellant] was on probation.... I knew Mr. M[endez] was a wanted felon and was [a] prohibited person.” In the Instagram photographs appellant wore a black and white print shirt and camouflage pants, and in some of the photos, he appeared to have a firearm tucked into the waistband of his pants. Also, in some of the photos there appeared to be a curtain made of camouflage material covering a window. The officers verified that appellant and Mendez were on active probation subject to search conditions, and were prohibited from possessing any type of firearm. Mendez was also in violation of his probation. Based on the Instagram photographs showing these individuals brandishing firearms, the officers decided to perform a probation search.
Officers Ochoa and Johnson, along with other officers, went to the West-point Middlepoint apartment complex around 9:23 p.m. “to conduct [a] probation search for [appellant and Mendez, ] who [the officers] believed to be at that residence.” The officers walked around the building and saw a rear, second-story window covered by a camouflage curtain similar to that ...