California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]
Mateo County Superior Court No. SF398877A Hon. Barbara J.
Mallach Trial Judge
Legal, Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorney
General, Eric D. Share and Huy T. Luong, Deputy Attorneys
General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
jury trial, defendant was convicted of, among other things,
two misdemeanor counts of possession of personal identifying
information and possession of a controlled substance,
alprazolam (Xanax). On appeal, he argues the trial court
erroneously denied his motion to dismiss both charges under
Penal Code section 1118.1. He further contends his controlled
substance possession conviction must be reversed because the
prosecution's expert conveyed inadmissible, case-specific
hearsay to the jury.
published portion of this opinion, we conclude the
prosecution's expert's testimony that he relied on a
database to determine the contents of the pills found on
defendant's person was not case-specific hearsay under
state law. We affirm the judgment.
November 19, 2015, the district attorney filed an information
charging defendant with six felonies and three
misdemeanors. As relevant to this appeal, defendant
was charged with misdemeanor possession of personal
identifying information (Pen. Code,  § 530.5, subd.
(c)(1); count 7) and misdemeanor possession of alprazolam
(Xanax) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11375, subd. (b)(2);
6, 2015, police sergeant Clint Simmont pulled defendant over
in his vehicle for making a right turn from a stop sign
without signaling. Sergeant Simmont searched defendant and
his car. He found a cellophane wrapper containing 10 pills in
defendant's coin pocket, and 5 personal checks in his
back pocket. Officers also found cocaine base in the pocket
of the driver's door. Defendant was arrested and
transported to the police station.
police station, defendant provided a statement to Sergeant
Simmont, which was played for the jury at trial. In his
statement, defendant said he takes four or five of the
“Xanibar” pills found on his person every day,
“[u]ntil [he] feel[s] good.” As to the checks
found in his back pocket, defendant said he found them on the
sidewalk and was going to “see what [he] could do with
'em.” He said he would try to cash them, but he
doubted it would work because his name was not on them.
Defendant said he did not know who signed the back of the
checks, and he “found 'em like that.”
trial, a jury found defendant guilty on four felony counts
and counts 7 and 8. The trial court suspended imposition of
sentence on defendant's felony counts and placed him on
three years of formal probation with one year of local
custody. The court imposed concurrent 90-day jail terms for
counts 7 and 8.
Possession of Personal Identifying Information
the close of the prosecution's case, defendant moved
under section 1118.1 to dismiss count 7 for possession of
personally identifying information because there was no
“information or... evidence with respect to the
individuals, whether they're real people, whether they
gave consent.... The only evidence is that he possessed these
checks.” The trial court denied the motion.
review “the denial of a section 1118.1 motion under the
standard employed in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a conviction. [Citation.] ‘In
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
.... we “examine the whole record in the light most
favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses
substantial evidence-evidence that is reasonable, credible
and of solid value-such that a reasonable trier of fact could
find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
[Citations.] We presume in support of the judgment the
existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce
from the evidence.' ” (People v. Houston
(2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, ...