P. v. James
In February 2005 Najib Phahez owned a 7-Eleven convenience store on Starling Drive in San Diego. In early February an employee of the 7 Eleven noticed items were missing from the health and beauty section of the store. Phahez determined there was a loss valued at $694. He examined the store's security tapes and saw someone on February 2, 2005, remove products from the shelf. He called the police and provided them with a compact disc of the footage.
Appellant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it refused to give CALJIC No. 2.92, specifically, with respect to the identification offered by Ramirez in the San Carlos Drive 7 Eleven burglary. CALJIC No. 2.92 sets forth factors the jury may consider in proving identity by eyewitness testimony.[5] In refusing to give the instruction, the trial court stated it was not appropriate because substantial evidence, including surveillance video and the testimony of Tanya Evans, corroborated Ramirez's identification. The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. James