P. v. Chapple
Filed 3/21/06 P. v. Chapple CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HORACE WILLIAM CHAPPLE, Defendant and Respondent. |
A110076
(San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. 193635) |
The trial court granted a motion by defendant Horace William Chapple (respondent) to set aside the information (Pen. Code,[1] § 995) charging him with possession of body armor by a felon (§ 12370, subd. (a)) (hereafter § 12370(a)), on the ground that opinion evidence offered by a police officer was inadmissible, and, as a consequence, there was insufficient evidence that the item the police seized was body armor as defined in section 12370(a). The People appeal contending the police officer's testimony was proper lay opinion. We reject the contention and affirm.
Background
Defendant was charged with being an ex-felon in possession of body armor in violation of section 12370(a).[2] That section relies on title 11, section 942, subdivision (e) of the California Code of Regulations, for the definition of body armor, which provides: â€
