Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Lucero

California Court of Appeals, Third District

October 25, 2019

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Dolores Maria LUCERO, Defendant and Appellant.

         [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION[*]]

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 243] APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, Cara Beatty, Judge. Affirmed. (Super. Ct. No. 12F2037)

Page 371

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 372

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 373

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 374

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 375

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 376

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 377

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 378

         COUNSEL

         Scott Concklin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Marcia A. Fay, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

         OPINION

         MURRAY, J.

Page 379

          This case of first impression involves the application of Penal Code section 134,[1] preparing false evidence. At issue are declarations containing false information collected by defendant, Dolores Maria Lucero, to be used in court to support of her request for injunctive relief to halt a petition drive to recall her from her position as a city council member for the City of Shasta Lake (Shasta Lake). Defendant also submitted the declarations to law enforcement, and an investigation against a person involved in the recall effort was initiated as a result. Defendant duped several people who had signed the recall petition into signing these declarations. A jury convicted defendant of violating section 134 for this conduct. She was thereafter placed on probation for three years with various terms and conditions including that she serve 30 days in jail. Two years into her probation, defendant petitioned for early termination of probation and the court granted it.

         On appeal, defendant contends that: (1) section 134 was inapplicable to the circumstances of this case and that section 118, perjury, is a more specific

Page 380

statute that covers her conduct; (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction; (3) the trial court committed prejudicial instructional error related to the instructions on the charged offense; (4) the testimony of one of the declarants, Charles Lukens, was coerced and that the trial court erred in excluding evidence offered to show that Lukens had a motive to conform his testimony to the prosecution’s theory of the case; and (5) certain probation conditions must be struck because they are unreasonable.

          We affirm.

          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          Prosecution’s Evidence

          Circulation of the Recall Petition

          Kay Kobe was one of the leaders of the recall effort and served as treasurer of the recall committee. Pamelyn Morgan, a [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 244] Shasta Lake city council person and mayor of the city, testified that she was also involved with the petition to recall defendant. Morgan knew Kobe as a friend and worked with Kobe on the recall effort. Morgan circulated petitions for the recall effort. On some occasions, Kobe would be with her.

          Defendant Reports Alleged Elections Code Violations to Law Enforcement

         Defendant reported alleged Elections Code violations to Tom Bosenko, Sheriff of Shasta County, claiming that a petition was being solicited illegally by Kobe who did not live in Shasta Lake. Although defendant was with an attorney, defendant did "close to ... 95 percent" of the talking. Sergeant Eric Magrini was assigned to investigate and defendant gave him five signed declarations. Magrini did not ask who prepared the typed declarations. Copies of the five declarations were introduced into evidence as People’s exhibits 2-A through 2-E. Defendant told Magrini that she had filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the recall from appearing on the ballot and had obtained the declarations to invalidate some of the signatures.[2]

Page 381

          Defendant repeated to Magrini that Kobe had circulated the recall petitions and had gathered signatures for the recall. Magrini could not recall whether defendant told him that Kobe had been circulating the petitions while alone, but this allegation appeared in each of the declarations. Magrini testified at the preliminary hearing that defendant asserted during this first interview that Kobe "was participating in collecting the signatures which, according to the Elections Code, ... she is not allowed to because it only allows residents of ... Shasta Lake who are registered voters to collect the signatures that go on the recall petitions...."

         Magrini ran Kobe’s DMV record and determined that she did not live in Shasta Lake. Based on Magrini’s understanding of Elections Code section 11045 at that time, he believed that Kobe was not allowed to circulate recall petitions in Shasta Lake. As we discuss post, after further investigation, he arrived at a different conclusion.

          Declarant Charles Lukens

          Charles Lukens, a resident of Shasta Lake, testified that, in late November 2011, two or possibly three people came to his residence circulating a petition to recall defendant. Lukens did not know any of the people circulating the petition, although he may have recognized the name Kay Kobe. When shown a photograph of Kobe, Lukens testified that she was one of the people. Lukens did not know the others. Lukens signed the petition.

          Sometime after Lukens signed the recall petition, defendant came to Lukens’s house. Defendant told Lukens that Kobe was not a resident of Shasta Lake, and that she was not permitted to have people sign the recall petition. Defendant did not take a statement from Lukens, and he did not give her information about what he knew about the recall. Thereafter, defendant came to Lukens’s house a second [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 245] time. Lukens believed that, on this second occasion, defendant came to his residence "about ... signing some paper or something." Defendant spent approximately 15 to 20 minutes talking to Lukens before she presented him with a prepared declaration. The document was pre-typed with some blank lines for information to be filled in. Lukens testified that defendant explained the declaration was about Kobe not being a resident and that it was illegal for her to pass out the petition. Defendant told him he needed to sign the document and write in his address and how long he had been a Shasta Lake resident.

          Lukens identified the signature on the declaration marked as People’s exhibit 2-A and other handwritten entries as his. He believed that exhibit 2-A was the document that he filled out when defendant came to his residence on

Page 382

this last occasion. He told the jury that all the handwriting was his except the word "November." Defendant told him to fill in his address and she would fill in the date.

         People’s exhibit 2-A read in pertinent part: "1. I am a resident and registered voter of the City of Shasta Lake, California (‘Shasta Lake’). I have been a resident of Shasta Lake since 32 years.[3] [¶] 2. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and I have personal knowledge of each and every fact stated herein and, if called to testify as a witness, I could and would testify competently thereto under oath. [¶] 3. This Declaration is submitted with full knowledge that it will be used in support of Shasta Lake Citizens for Justice and Dolores Lucero’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction, which seeks to stop the currently schedule [sic ] April 10, 2012 recall election of Councilmember Dolores Lucero (‘Councilmember Lucero’). [¶] 4. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the movement to institute a recall election for City Councilmember Lucero, but I am personally politically neutral on the issue. [¶] 5. I am familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe, who is a resident of Redding, California, and a member of the Gateway School Board. [¶] 6. On November, 2011, at approximately 3 p.m., Kay Kobe approached me at my private residence ....[4] She was circulating a petition for the recall of Councilmember Lucero. There were no other persons with her circulating the petition. She asked by [sic] if I would sign such petition. I declined ." (Italics added.)

          Lukens testified that a number of statements in the declaration were true. However, the statement that he was familiar with Kobe was not true. Lukens testified, "I’m not really familiar with her, and that whole point what she was saying was that it was -- that she wasn’t a resident, so that’s untrue right there." Lukens also testified that he only knew Kobe was a Redding resident because defendant told him as much. Additionally, the statement [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 246] that Lukens knew Kobe was a member of the Gateway School Board was false.

         Lukens further testified that the statement in the declaration that there was no one else with Kobe when she was circulating the recall petition was false. He testified that a woman who was with Kobe presented him with the

Page 383

petition, explained the petition or where to sign it, and he signed it. Lukens testified that he told defendant "that there was other people there with Ms. Kobe ...."[5]

          Additionally, the statement in the declaration that Lukens declined to sign the recall petition was false. Lukens told defendant that he signed it.

          Lukens testified that he did not read the entire declaration before signing it. He explained that he had been tired, "a little hazy," from working a double shift. When asked on direct examination if he read it before signing, Lukens responded, "No, I didn’t. I - it was just explained the document, and it wasn’t the smartest thing I did. It was just I just went off of her word, what she told me." When asked on cross-examination if, since the document was a declaration, he thought it was important to read it before he signed, Lukens responded, "To be honest, I should have read it. Uhm, what was explained to me and what’s on the paper was two different things. So, I went off of - I made the mistake of going off of just what somebody said instead of reading it." Lukens acknowledged that defendant did not tell him not to read the declaration, and he did not tell defendant he was not reading the declaration.

          Declarant Cheri Ala

          Cheri Ala testified that, in November 2011, two people came to her house about a petition to recall defendant. Ala subsequently learned that Kobe was one of the two. The other was an older male named John with two prosthetic legs, who had been wearing shorts. Both talked to Ala, and she did not remember which of the two asked her to sign the petition, but she signed it.

          Not too long after Ala signed the recall petition, Ala spoke to defendant after a city council meeting. Ala told defendant that she had seen Kobe on the news saying that she did not circulate the petition, and Ala told defendant that was not true because Kobe came to her house. Ala told defendant she wanted to have her name removed from the petition. Defendant asked Ala if there had been anyone with Kobe, and Ala stated that there had been a man with Kobe who had two prosthetic legs. Defendant asked if the man had been wearing shorts.

          Defendant furnished Ala with a pre-typed document. Ala signed it. Presented with People’s exhibit 2-B at trial, Ala identified her signature and handwritten entries, and testified that it appeared to be the document that she filled out and signed with defendant at the city council meeting. Ala testified

Page 384

defendant told her "where to fill in what." Regarding the time she signed the petition, defendant told Ala to put down the approximate time.

          People’s exhibit 2-B, read in pertinent part: "2. I have personal knowledge of each and every fact stated herein .... 3. This Declaration is submitted with full knowledge that it will be used in support of Shasta Lake Citizens for Justice and Dolores Lucero’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction, which seeks to stop the currently schedule [sic ] April 10, 2012 recall election of Councilmember [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 247] Dolores Lucero (‘Councilmember Lucero’). [¶] 4. I am familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the movement to institute a recall election for City Councilmember Lucero, but am politically neutral on the issue. [¶] 5. I am personally familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe. [¶] 6. On approx [illegible], 2011, at approximately 4 p.m., Kay Kobe approached me at my private residence .... She was circulating a petition. There were no other persons with her circulating the petition. She asked by [sic ] if I would sign the petition. [¶] 7. I signed the petition based on the representation by Kay Kobe that this was not for the recall of Dolores Lucero. [¶] 8. I do not want my name to be counted as a voter in support of such petition and request to be removed from such petition." (Italics added.) Ala testified that the statement in the declaration stating that she had personal knowledge of all of the facts therein was false because she did not read the document. Additionally, the statement in the declaration concerning her knowledge of the purpose for the declaration was also false. Ala testified, "I didn’t read it. I thought ... [defendant] told me the declaration was about something totally different." Initially, Ala testified that defendant told her that the document was to stop the recall because the person circulating the petition did not live in Shasta Lake. Defendant told Ala it was to prove Kobe circulated the petition. Later, on cross-examination, Ala testified defendant told her the declaration was to have Ala’s name removed from the petition. Ala testified that, "I thought at the time Kay Kobe was lying about circulating the petition." Ala thought by signing the declaration, she "was doing the right thing ...."

          Ala testified that she had only met Kobe once, on the day she came to Ala’s house, and the statement that she was personally familiar with Kobe was false.

          Ala told the jury that the statement indicating that there were no other people with Kobe circulating the petition was false because "[t]here were two people there and [defendant] knew it." Asked how defendant would know this, Ala testified, "[w]e discussed it before I signed the document."

          The statement in the declaration, "I signed the petition based on the representation by Kay Kobe that this was not for the recall of Dolores

Page 385

Lucero," was also a false statement because the petition Ala signed was for the recall, and Ala testified that she was not misled about that. Nor did she tell defendant that Kobe misled her when she signed the recall petition.

          Ala described the atmosphere at the council meeting where she signed the declaration as "crazy," like no other council meeting she had seen before. She felt hurried because the environment was hostile, a reporter was trying to talk to her because she had told the city council Kobe had lied on television about not circulating the petition, and members of the audience were also angry at her. According to Ala, the process of filling in the blanks on the declaration "went really fast" and "[i]t was all in a hurry." Ala testified, "I just did what she asked." Ala told the jury defendant "tricked me into signing something I didn’t read and told me it was for something else."

          Declarant Betty Kirk

          Betty Kirk testified that, in November 2011, Kobe and another person came to her home concerning a petition to recall defendant. Kirk knew Kobe, but not the other person. Kirk signed the petition.

          Later the same day, defendant and her friend came to Kirk’s home. They were at Kirk’s house for approximately an hour talking about why people were trying to [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 248] get her removed from office. Defendant presented Kirk with a pre-typed document to sign, and Kirk filled in the blanks and signed it. When asked if someone explained what to do concerning the blanks, Kirk testified defendant told her "to sign here and put that date, sign here." Kirk did not read the entire document. When asked why she signed the document without reading it, Kirk said she did so because she and defendant had gone over it and defendant had read it to her. Kirk testified that she trusted defendant and felt bad for her.

          When shown People’s exhibit 2-D, Kirk testified that it looked like the document she reviewed and signed with defendant. People’s exhibit 2-D read in pertinent part: "5. I am personally familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe. [¶] 6. On Nov, 2011, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Kay Kobe approached me at my private residence .... She was circulating a petition. There were no other persons with her circulating the petition. She asked by [sic ] if I would sign the petition. [¶] 7. I signed the petition based on the representation by Kay Kobe that this was not for the recall of Dolores Lucero . [¶] 8. I do not want my name to be counted as a voter in support of such petition and request to be removed from such petition." (Italics added.)

          Kirk testified that the statement in the declaration that there were no other persons with Kobe circulating the petition was false. Kirk testified that she

Page 386

told defendant that there was someone else with Kobe when Kobe approached her. In fact, together they tried to figure out who the other woman was. Kirk also testified that it was not Kobe, but rather the person who was with Kobe, who asked her to sign the petition. Kirk testified, "It was the one that was with her was telling what the -- what it was about." Kirk also testified that, contrary to the statement in the declaration, she knew she was signing the petition to recall defendant. Kirk testified that she never told defendant that she did not know what Kobe gave her to sign, and, in fact, she told defendant that she knew what she signed. Kirk did agree, however, that, when she signed the declaration, she no longer wanted her name counted as a voter in support of the recall petition. She felt she had signed the petition without knowing enough about the issues.

          Kirk testified that she only had the declaration for a brief time and did not read it. She testified that defendant went over the declaration with her. Kirk did not read the entire declaration because she trusted defendant. On cross-examination, Kirk acknowledged that defendant never told her not to read the declaration.

          Declarant Deloris Arnold

          Deloris Arnold testified that, in November 2011, she was at a neighbor’s house when two people she did not know came by with a petition to recall defendant. When shown a photograph of Kobe, Arnold testified that Kobe may have been one of the two individuals. The other individual was a male. Arnold signed the recall petition.

          Approximately two weeks later, defendant came to Arnold’s house with another person. Arnold had not previously met defendant. She spoke with defendant for approximately 20 minutes. They discussed the recall effort. Defendant told Arnold that "she [defendant] was in the right."

          A couple of days later, defendant returned to Arnold’s house to have Arnold sign a document. Arnold did not read the document before signing it because she did not have her glasses. She asked defendant what the document was and defendant simply said her lawyer wanted her to sign it. Arnold asked, "what for?" Defendant said, "Well, it just needs to be signed." On this occasion, Arnold did not fill in any [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 249] information; she only signed after defendant told her where to sign. Arnold explained, "I didn’t have my glasses on, but I went ahead and signed it, because I -- I just wanted to find out the truth." Asked why she signed a document that she did not read, Arnold testified, "I just believed her," referring to defendant.

          Arnold testified that defendant returned the following day and had her sign another document. Arnold asked why she needed to sign it since she had "just

Page 387

signed one yesterday." Defendant said, "My lawyer wants you to go ahead and sign this." Arnold asked, "But why?" Defendant said, "Well, you just - you need to sign this," so Arnold signed. Arnold "took it in good faith that everything was okay." Again, she did not have her glasses on and she signed the document without reading it. However, Arnold did not tell defendant she could not read without her glasses.

          When shown People’s exhibit 2-C, Arnold testified that the handwriting on the document was hers. People’s exhibit 2-C states in pertinent part: "2. I have personal knowledge of each and every fact stated herein .... [¶] 3. This Declaration is submitted with full knowledge that it will be used in support of Shasta Lake Citizens for Justice and Dolores Lucero’s Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction, which seeks to stop the currently schedule [sic ] April 10, 2012 recall election of Councilmember Dolores Lucero (‘Councilmember Lucero’). [¶] ... [¶] 5. I am personally familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe. [¶] 6. On 11-20, 2011, at approximately [illegible] p.m., Kay Kobe approached me at my private residence .... She was circulating a petition. There were no other persons with her circulating the petition. She asked by [sic ] if I would sign the petition. [¶] 7. I signed the petition based on the representation by Kay Kobe that this was not for the recall of Dolores Lucero. [¶] 8. I do not want my name to be counted as a voter in support of such petition and request to be removed from such petition." (Italics added.)

         Arnold testified that, contrary to the statement in the declaration, she did not have personal knowledge of each and every fact therein. She also did not have full knowledge of the purposes for which the declaration was to be used. Arnold testified that defendant said that she was going to use the document in an effort to keep her position on the board of supervisors.[6] Arnold also testified that the statement in the declaration that she was personally familiar with Kobe was false. Arnold further testified that the statement that Kobe came to her house on a particular date at a particular time circulating a petition was false, because Kobe "never came to [her] house." Also, the statement that there was no one else with Kobe when she was circulating the petition was also false. Arnold reiterated that two people approached her at her neighbor’s house, asking her to sign the petition. Arnold knew what she was signing and she never told defendant that, when she signed the recall petition, she did not know what it was. Arnold also never said that she wanted her name off of the recall petition.

          On cross-examination, Arnold acknowledged that when she testified at the preliminary hearing, she testified that she asked the people circulating the petition what it was about and they did not explain it to her. She explained

Page 388

they "didn’t go into detail." Arnold also acknowledged that defendant did not tell her not to read the declaration.

         [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 250] Declarant John Nelson

          John Nelson did not testify, but Karen Marks, his caretaker, did. Marks testified that, in November 2011, Nelson was blind, and he was "beginning to descend into dementia." He would change the thread of a conversation in midstream and could not follow a conversation to its conclusion.

          Marks recalled an occasion in November 2011, when two people came to Nelson’s house with a petition to recall defendant. Marks testified that she "helped [Nelson] sign their petition."

          Morgan testified that on one of the occasions Kobe accompanied her, they went to the home of a blind man whom she later learned was John Nelson. There was a caretaker present. Morgan testified that Kobe "may have done most of the talking." However, it was Morgan who circulated the petition.

          Within two weeks, defendant came to Nelson’s house. Marks testified she did not know whether Nelson signed anything for defendant. However, Marks was certain that the signature on People’s exhibit 2-E was Nelson’s signature, which she recognized based on her experience in helping him sign documents. Marks was working in another part of the house and did not know whether defendant read the declaration to Nelson.

          Marks did not believe that she read the document, but testified that she did read the text surrounding the blanks to Nelson so he would know what to fill in. Then she filled in the blanks with the information Nelson orally provided.

          People’s exhibit 2-E read, in pertinent part: "5. I am personally familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe, who is a resident of Redding California, and a member of the Gateway School Board. In addition to the meeting described below, I have met Kay Kobe on __ number of occasions, making her easily recognizable to me. [¶] 6. On 11/29, 2011, at approximately 3 p.m., Kay Kobe approached me at my private residence .... She was circulating a petition for the recall of Councilmember Lucero. There were no other persons with her circulating the petition. She asked by [sic] if I would sign such petition. I declined." (Italics added.)

          Defendant’s Declaration

         A declaration signed by defendant on February 29, 2012, was introduced by the prosecution and stated, in part: "5. I am familiar with the facts and

Page 389

circumstances surrounding the movement to institute a recall election against me. [¶] 6. I am personally familiar with the individual known as Kay Kobe, who is a resident of Redding California, and a member of the Gateway School Board. In addition to the meeting described below, I have met Kay Kobe on 1 [sic ] number of occasions, making her easily recognizable to me. [¶] 7. On Nov 29, 2011, at approximately 3-4:00 p.m., I observed Kay Kobe approach a private residence ....[7] I was located in my vehicle located directly across the street at the location of Main Street. [¶] 8. I had a clear line of sight to observe Kobe approach such residence and the interaction she had with the resident of such property. I later discovered the identity of such person as John S. Nelson which I contacted Mr. Nelson at the above private residence in February 2012 regarding Kobe approaching him. [¶] 9. On the date Kobe approached Mr. Nelson, [she] appeared to be holding a document in her hand. During this time there were no other persons with her circulating the petition . [¶] 10. Based on my observation of Kobe approaching others in ... Shasta Lake, and my knowledge [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 251] that Kobe was directly involved in the committee supporting the recall efforts against me, I believed that Kobe was circulating a petition to put a recall against me on the ballot. [¶] 11. I observed Kobe approach Mr. Nelson, produce a piece of paper believed to be the recall petition, some discussion between Kobe and Nelson, and Kobe assisting Nelson in signing the document. [¶] 12. I then observed Kobe leave the vicinity of Nelson’s residence and proceed walking South bound on Main Street. [¶] 13. On or about January 23, 2012, I approached Mr. Nelson at his residence and inquired as to whether he recalled Kobe approaching him for his signature to a petition. He recalled such occurrence. He recalled that he signed a petition circulated by Kobe. He also advised that he was aware that Kobe was alone at such time. [¶] 14. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a printout of voter registration data which I purchased from Shasta County. Such data shows in relevant part that ... the residence address utilized by Kay Kobe for purposes of voter registration is ... Redding, California." (Italics added.)

          Sgt. Magrini’s Investigation and His Follow-up Interview with Defendant

          Magrini met with each of the five declarants. He also met with Kobe. On March 16, 2012, Magrini interviewed defendant at her home. The interview was audio-recorded and the recording was played for the jury.

          In the interview, Magrini told defendant that he went over each declaration with the declarants line by line. Magrini stated that each of the declarants told him that Kobe had someone else with her. Magrini also stated that each declarant told him that the statement in their declaration that Kobe told them

Page 390

the petition was not for the recall of defendant was false, and that they knew they were signing the recall petition.

         Magrini also told defendant that he had interviewed Kobe and that Elections Code section 11045 did not prohibit Kobe from "going door to door, from being part of the campaign for the recall." It only prohibited someone who is not a registered voter in the electoral jurisdiction from "acting alone, going and collecting signatures" unaccompanied by someone from the jurisdiction. Magrini told defendant, "So use a hypothetical. [My partner] and I are ... circulating these recall petitions. He lives in City of Shasta Lake, I live in City of Redding. We can go together door to door. I can say whatever I want as long as he’s there to witness the signature as a resident of the City of Shasta Lake. I cannot go by myself and collect signatures by myself as a resident of the City of Redding. So, there’s no doubt Miss Kobe went out and helped petition and helped seek people to gather signatures. But every time she went she was with somebody by the statements provided by the five people ...."

          Magrini told defendant that Kobe and the five declarants all said that, when Kobe went out collecting signatures, Kobe had someone else with her and it was the people she was with who gathered the signatures. He also told defendant that Kirk and Nelson reported that they knew what they were signing when they signed the recall petition.

          Magrini specifically told defendant that, after he read Nelson the declaration, Nelson indicated that its contents were "not his understanding and that he was not familiar with that document. Partially because he couldn’t see it, but the way it was explained to him by yourself that he didn’t have all the information ... when he signed the document" and that "you didn’t fully explain it to him." Defendant said [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 252] Nelson’s caretaker read "the whole thing" to Nelson "and explained to him what it was."

          Defendant claimed that she went through Arnold’s declaration line by line with Arnold to verify each point. Magrini told defendant that Arnold said she did not have her glasses and essentially told him that defendant had deceived her or misrepresented when she signed the declaration.

          Magrini told defendant that Lukens said the declaration was wrong and defendant did not explain the declaration to him when she asked him to sign. Magrini explained that Lukens told him, "I’m furious with Miss Lucero right now. I feel like I was misled."

          Magrini told defendant that he believed that "where this investigation is leading ... I believe that there was some manipulation." He told defendant,

Page 391

"I think there’s some games being played here and some manipulation on how documents were presented." Magrini explained that he was continuing to investigate Kobe’s alleged Elections Code violations, which he had found no evidence to support. However, he further explained, "I do have evidence to support is [sic ] you coming into our office and making a false police report." Magrini stated that he would submit his report to the district attorney’s office.

          Defendant stated she had obtained a private investigator because, "I actually don’t feel this is gonna come out fair. [T]his is bogus. This is bunch of bologna that these people are becoming cowards to, from what I see, they’re not coming to be straight and saying the truth." Defendant stated that she knew "there was gonna be a turnaround and say something like that."

          Defendant went on to say it seemed like the declarants were backing out because they were afraid. She asserted, "I’m telling the truth and I’m not gonna be taking people’s lies and how these turning out because ... this whole thing started with these people." She insisted, "I always tell people you need to read the document to make sure ... you understand what you’re signing."

          Magrini emphasized that every declarant stated that Kobe had been with someone else, and that defendant specifically asked about that when she talked to them. The following exchange ensued:

          "[MAGRINI]: Can we answer that question first? Did you specifically ask that and verify it? Cause that’s the, the filing the criminal report that you made, the direct violation is her acting alone. Without anybody, a representative of the res, [sic ] of the city, within the City of Shasta Lake with them, with her. Um, and it’s very specific on each of these declarations. Line 18, there were no other persons with her circulating the petition. Period. That’s very specific. It’s been on every single document. And they signed these. And that’s not true. And I think we knew that was the case but it was tried, we tried to slip it in.

          "[DEFENDANT]: Well I mean,

          "[MAGRINI]: That’s my belief.

          "[DEFENDANT]: You’re, so the way I think,

          "[MAGRINI]: Am I fair, am I fair in that?

          "[DEFENDANT]: I understand that part. But it’s, I mean I’m,

Page 392

          "[MAGRINI]: Can we answer that part? Am I fair in saying that?

          "[DEFENDANT]: You’re fair."

          Defendant went on to say, "what I’m understanding too is that when you go door to door, like when me and her go door to door she goes to one, one side and I go to the other side. [¶] ... [¶] So [254 Cal.Rptr.3d 253] basically she might have been with somebody but doesn’t mean they were together door to door." Defendant said what Magrini had described sounded like a "loophole."

          Magrini repeated that none of the declarants were saying Kobe was by herself when they signed the petition. Defendant’s response ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.