P. v. Bommarito
Filed 3/27/06 P. v. Bommarito CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAREN KAY BOMMARITO, Defendant and Appellant. | E036695 (Super.Ct.No. BAF002628) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Richard T. Fields, Judge. Affirmed.
Laurel Nelson Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, David Delgado-Rucci and Shari A. Lawson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An elderly and disabled couple hired defendant as a live-in caretaker. Defendant proceeded to make purchases and pay bills using their checking account, their credit cards, and new credit cards that she applied for in their names. The couple denied any knowledge of these transactions. Defendant, on the other hand, testified that she acted with their permission. The jury evidently believed the elderly couple and disbelieved defendant.
Defendant now contends:
1. The trial court erred by failing to instruct on the defense of innocent intent.
2. The trial court erred by failing to give a unanimity instruction.
3. Defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) precluded her from being convicted of either identity theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) or grand theft from an elder (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)).
4. The prosecution's expert witness on financial crimes gave improper opinion testimony, including inadmissible â€
