P. v. Canez CA5
Manuel Canez was convicted in a jury trial of all counts alleged in an 11-count information. In the instant appeal, he argues for reversal of his convictions on two counts of arson and one count of robbery. As to one of the counts of arson, he argues the court’s admission of evidence related to “alerts” by an accelerant-sniffing dog at the site of the relevant fire was prejudicial error. As to the other arson count, Canez argues the court was required to dismiss it because certain “potentially useful” evidence was destroyed prior to trial, on account of fire officials’ bad faith. Canez next challenges his robbery conviction for insufficiency of the evidence. Finally, he argues the robbery conviction must be reversed because the court failed sua sponte to instruct the jury on grand theft person, a lesser included offense of robbery. We reject each contention and affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Canez CA5