P. v. Duncan

Filed 8/17/07 P. v. Duncan CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 20, 2007, be modified as follows:

1.      On page 19, after the last full paragraph ending with plan and knowledge.⁷ the following new paragraph is inserted:

Moreover, we find the partial error in admitting the evidence harmless. The evidence of identity was overwhelming and unrebutted. It is undisputed that defendant was at the scene. Officer Urban saw defendant make the sale and immediately confronted defendant, who ran. And Posey also identified as the seller. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the court admitted the evidence to show only common plan and knowledge. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

2.      On page 23, line 6, the citation People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 is changed so the citation reads as follows:

People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellants petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated: ____________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

PREMO, J.

_________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line Lawyers.