P. v. Pena
Filed 6/30/06 P. v. Pena CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARCO ANTONIO PENA, Defendant and Appellant. | H028493 (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. F07729 ) |
Following a jury trial, defendant Marco Antonio Pena was found guilty of possessing cocaine for sale, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11351. He appeals his conviction, asserting three grounds: prosecutorial misconduct, error in admitting evidence, and instructional error. We find no basis for reversal. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.
BACKGROUND
In July 2003, officers of the Watsonville Police Department arrested defendant at his home, after they executed a search warrant and found approximately nine grams of cocaine in his kitchen.
Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for sale. He was arraigned in August 2003. Following a preliminary examination in September 2003, defendant was bound over for trial. In October 2003, he pleaded not guilty to an information that charged him with a single felony count of possession of cocaine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.)
Jury trial began in November 2004.
The Prosecution's Case in Chief
The prosecution's key witness was Watsonville Police Officer Skip Prigge. Prigge executed the search warrant at defendant's home in July 2003. After testimony about his training and experience, Prigge was qualified as an expert â€
