P. v. Boldway

Filed 3/24/06 P. v. Boldway CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE

Defendant Peter Boldway appeals from the judgment entered following his conviction for possession for sale of methamphetamine. He contends the trial court made a number of instructional errors and also abused its discretion in denying his motion to disclose the identity of confidential informants on whom the police officers relied to establish probable cause for a search warrant. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

Defendant was charged by information with manufacturing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)), possession of a controlled substance for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)).

In November 2004, defendant moved to compel the disclosure of the identity of confidential informants referenced in the police officer's affidavit in support of the search warrant executed on the trailer in which defendant was found. After an initial in camera review of the sealed affidavit, the court tentatively granted defendant's motion. The court continued the matter, however, for further in camera review. After personally interviewing the informants, the court reversed its prior determination and denied the motion.

The matter was tried before a jury. Officer Joseph Brian McGovern testified that on June 4, 2003, he executed a search warrant on a trailer owned by Eric McMurtrie. When officers entered, defendant was seated on a couch in the living room. The officers searched the trailer and found three plastic bags of methamphetamine. One was in a coffeepot in the kitchen, one was in a wicker basket under a desk in the living room, and the third was under the bathroom sink. Officers also found a glass dish that contained a small amount of methamphetamine, a number of police scanners, and two scales.

McMurtrie, who was charged as a codefendant but pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine for sale prior to trial, testified for the prosecution. He testified that defendant had been his roommate but had moved out six months prior to the search. Defendant stayed at the trailer intermittingly after moving out and had been staying there for the three days preceding the search. McMurtrie testified that he had allowed defendant to manufacture methamphetamine in the trailer in the past and that, when the police knocked on the door, he saw defendant remove something from his duffle bag and stuff it beneath the desk.

Defendant presented a number of witnesses who testified either that they had seen McMurtrie manufacture methamphetamine in the trailer or had seen people buy methamphetamine from McMurtrie in the trailer. Defendant testified that he went to the trailer three or four times a month to â€