Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. 36107-J
Bruiniers, J.
Erika H.A., a juvenile, was arrested after police found large quantities of marijuana, methamphetamines, packaging materials, substantial amounts of cash, and indicia of Erika’s residency in a bedroom of a house they searched pursuant to a search warrant. Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court sustained findings that Erika unlawfully possessed narcotics for sale. In this appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that she had possession of the contraband. We affirm.
I. Background
On September 3, 2009, the Sonoma County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a) on behalf of Erika H.A. (Erika; born February 1992) alleging that on September 1 she possessed marijuana for sale, a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359; count I); possessed methamphetamine for sale, a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count II); and endangered her two-year-old son Anthony H. (Anthony) and three-year-old Lorenzo T. (Lorenzo), a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b); count III).
The record indicates that Erika was declared a juvenile dependent in 2003 pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, based on a report that she had been sexually abused by her father. However, she recanted her story, returned to her parents’ custody, and moved to Mexico. The dependency case was dismissed in 2005 because her whereabouts were unknown. Following her arrest on September 1, 2009, the dependency case was reinstated.
Prosecution Case
A contested jurisdictional hearing took place on September 23, 2009. Rohnert Park Police Sergeant Jeff Justice, who was qualified as an expert on narcotics sales, testified that on September 1, 2009, he participated in the service of a search warrant at a residence on Mission Boulevard in Santa Rosa. Before serving the warrant, he observed the residence starting at approximately 9:20 a.m. and saw Roberto B.B. (Roberto) drive up in a car, walk up to the front door, speak to someone, return to the car, remove a paper bag from the car, walk back to the residence, return with a paper bag, place the bag in the back seat of the car, and then look up and down the street as if looking for somebody (which Justice opined was “counter-surveillance, looking to see if there’s anyone around watching what they’re doing”). Justice testified that Roberto’s conduct appeared to be “possibly narcotics related.” In the two or three weeks before September 1, Justice had also conducted surveillance of the residence and on one occasion had observed Maximo G.B. (Maximo) engage in what appeared to be a drug transaction in front of the residence.
Many participants in this incident use two surnames and are variously referred to in the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts by one or the other or both of those surnames. We use what appear to be the full names as they are reported in the probation report, except that we use “Roberto” as the name of the person who also went by the name of “Benito.” Initials for the adults’ surnames are used to protect the juvenile appellant’s identity.
At approximately 11:00 a.m., Justice and seven other officers made a forced entry into the home. Immediately upon entering the house, Justice saw Erika standing about five feet inside the front door holding a baby, later identified as her son, Anthony (born July 2007). Juan Carlos B.G. (Juan Carlos) and Maximo were standing in the living room area. Jesus T.S. (Jesus) was near the rear sliding glass door and he had been seen trying to run out the back door when the officers knocked on the front door. Roberto was in the west bedroom and he had been seen reaching into a cooler on a closet shelf when the officers knocked on the door. Abel T.A. (Abel) was lying on a bed in the east bedroom. While the officers were in the house, Maria S.L. (Maria) drove up to the house with three-year-old Lorenzo and was detained as she tried to drive away. Maria was the wife of Abel, who was the primary owner or renter of the house.
The officers detained all of the occupants and had them sit in the living room while they searched the house. In the west bedroom, Justice smelled the odor of marijuana and found a cooler in the closet on a shelf about five feet off the ground. Inside the cooler, he found $580 in cash, a large bag of marijuana, and a ziplock bag, which contained 10 individually packaged items of what appeared to be one ounce each of methamphetamine. Justice opined that this was a typical amount of methamphetamine “in the larger sales of narcotics.” A duffel bag full of marijuana was on the floor of the closet, where two-year-old Anthony could have accessed it. In a nightstand between the bed and closet, Justice found two boxes of turkey oven bags, which are commonly used for packaging narcotics. On the shelf of an entertainment center in the west bedroom, Justice found a shoe box containing a baggie of what appeared to be methamphetamines (about one-half ounce), a digital scale, and plastic baggies commonly used for packaging narcotics. Justice opined that the methamphetamine in this box was possessed for sale. The shoe box was easily seen and was “right out available to anyone that walked into the bedroom.” Its lid was not taped or locked in any way. It was only three or three and one-half feet off the ground, and Anthony would have been able to reach the box on the shelf.
The prosecutor identified Anthony as “the minor [H.], whose birth date is in 1992, ” but this appears to be an obvious error because she proceeded to ask if Anthony was “able to crawl, ” Justice identified Anthony as “the victim” (i.e., of the child endangerment charge), and the juvenile delinquency petition identified him as two years old. The prosecutor apparently mistakenly cited Erika’s birth year, which is 1992.
Later in his testimony, Justice testified that he found the shoe box in the night stand. However, at the point in his examination when he was asked to clarify which piece of furniture was the night stand and which was the entertainment center, he clearly identified the object depicted in Exhibit 3 as the entertainment center, and Exhibit 3 clearly shows a white shoe box sitting on a shelf of the piece of furniture depicted there. Justice had previously confused “nightstand” with “entertainment center” and his later testimony appears to be a misstatement.
On the bed in the west bedroom, Justice found a purse with a small amount of cash and indicia of ownership for Maribel A., Erika’s mother. In the nightstand, he found indicia of residency for Maximo. On top of the entertainment center, Justice found a letter addressed to Erika and a photograph he testified was a picture of Erika. The letter, dated August 25, 2009, was addressed to Erika at an address on Range Avenue in Santa Rosa, which Erika identified as her mother’s address. Aside from the indicia for Maximo, Erika’s mother, and Erika, Justice found no other indicia in the west bedroom. There were women’s clothes strewn on the bed. There might have been a basket of clothes in the room. He did not see women’s clothes hanging in the closet or stored in the nightstand.
Later in his testimony, Justice testified that he found the letter and photograph “on top of the nightstand.” However, as noted in the previous footnote, he appears to have misspoken. Exhibit 3, which Justice clearly identified as a photograph of the entertainment center, shows the photograph standing on top of entertainment center.
In the east bedroom’s closet, Justice found three baggies of what appeared to be methamphetamine in a shirt pocket, a larger baggie of apparent methamphetamine in a jacket pocket, and both indicia for Abel and live ammunition in another shirt pocket. Elsewhere in the bedroom, he found indicia for Abel, Maria, and the child Lorenzo.
Justice also searched the kitchen, living room, bathroom, laundry room, and two hall closets. In the laundry room, he found two large stashes of marijuana. In one of the hall closets, he found indicia for Maximo and Juan Carlos. He did not find any devices commonly used to ingest methamphetamine. The house was about 1, 000 square feet in area. When the officers entered, the doors to the west and east bedrooms were open and the door to the laundry room was halfway open. Justice opined that the people living in the house had access to all rooms in the house.
Erika initially told police she lived at the Mission Boulevard residence. She later told Justice that she lived elsewhere (she said she had recently moved there from her mother’s house and did not know the address), but said that she stayed at the Mission Boulevard residence approximately four days a week because she was paid to cook and to care for the children. Abel was her uncle. When Justice asked Erika if she was aware drugs were being sold in the house, she said she was aware but she had no part in it. She also acknowledged it was dangerous for children to live in a house where drugs were being sold. When Justice told Erika she was going to be arrested and the children were going to be taken into protective custody, she asked if she could change the children first and Justice consented. She went into the west bedroom, then went to the east bedroom to get items for Lorenzo, and then reentered the west bedroom and changed the children. Justice left the area to deal with another matter and when he returned he noticed Erika had changed her clothes. As she was being handcuffed, she “was trying to have an amount of cash in one of her pants pockets and then she also admitted that she had stored some cash in her bra while she was changing.” In total, $457 was found on her person after she changed.
When Maria was arrested, she left Lorenzo in Erika’s care.
All of the people present at the residence were arrested. “[D]rugs were located throughout the residence, large amounts of it. Everyone that was located in the residence either had large amounts of cash on them or there was [sic] cash receipts located in the residence. There was packaging in the residence. I believe that everybody in the residence was complicit in the sales of the narcotics.” He acknowledged that people who are “not legal U.S. citizens” sometimes work for cash instead of a normal paycheck and he had found several vineyard paychecks in the names of Maximo and Juan Carlos. He also acknowledged that someone hired to cook and care for children in the home is typically paid in cash.
Motion to Dismiss
At the close of the prosecution case, the defense moved to dismiss the possession charges because Erika’s mere presence in the house or ability to access the drugs in the house did not establish that she had constructive possession of the drugs. The court denied the motion.
Defense Case
Juan Carlos testified that he saw Erika at the Mission Boulevard house, where his brothers Maximo and Roberto lived, when she cooked breakfast and did housework there. Erika kept some clothes at the house, sometimes showered there, and sometimes slept in the living room with Leticia, an 11-year-old girl who lived there. He never saw her sleep elsewhere in the house. Erika lived at a different house on Aston Avenue in Santa Rosa and she kept her clothes and her baby’s clothes there. Juan Carlos knew this because he was with Erika once when she went to the house to pick up her child and change her clothes. Erika also had another job working at a “fish place, ” which Juan Carlos knew because he had picked her up there once. Juan Carlos never saw Erika use, hold, touch, or sell drugs and Erika never talked to him about drugs being kept at or sold from the Mission Boulevard house. To the best of his knowledge, no one used or displayed drugs while Erika was present. The people who lived there locked their bedroom doors from the inside when they left the house. Juan Carlos, however, had once seen marijuana in a bag at the Mission Boulevard house.
Erika testified that Abel was her uncle on her mother’s side and her cousin on her father’s side. His children were her cousins. She would go to the Mission Boulevard house Mondays through Thursdays to cook breakfast for the men who worked for the wineries (Abel, Maximo and Juan Carlos), and she spent even more time there over the summers because her cousins were out of school. “[M]y cousin and his wife and his kids were like my family.” She only occasionally spent the night when she had stayed late or when she had to rise early in the morning to cook breakfast. She would usually sleep with Leticia on a bed in the living room. She never slept anywhere else in the house. She did not have a key to the house or to any of the bedrooms. The bedroom doors were closed when the residents were away from the house and she never tried to open the doors to determine if they were locked. She lived at a house she believed was located on Aston Avenue in Santa Rosa. Because she had moved there not long before her arrest, she could not give the officer the address of the house. The other people at the Aston Avenue house watched Erika’s baby while she worked on the weekends at the farmer’s market for a seafood business. She was paid in cash both for her work in the Mission Boulevard house and for her work for the seafood company.
According to the transcript, Erika testified that “Edward [T.]” was her uncle and cousin, but this seems to be a transcription error because no one named Edward is mentioned in the rest of the appellate record.
On September 1, 2009, Erika had brought her purse and a basket of clothes to the house. Sometimes Maria would give Erika a ride to a laundromat where they would both do their laundry and they were planning to go to the laundromat that day. Maria did not do laundry at home because the water and electricity bills got too high. Erika put her laundry basket in the living room, but someone told her to move it because they were going to clean the carpet, so she put it in one of the bedrooms. Regarding her mother’s identification (found in a purse in the west bedroom), Erika testified that she had picked up some papers from her mother’s house and she probably picked up the identification with the other papers by mistake. Regarding the benefits letter that was found in the west bedroom, Erika testified that Maria had brought the letter to Erika after she visited a house where Erika used to live and Erika had opened the letter while in the west bedroom and just left it there because it was not very important to her, as she no longer intended to collect benefits. Regarding the photograph, she said it was a picture of a sister of the brothers who lived at the house (apparently, Maximo and Roberto). The brothers had showed it to her once when she was watching television or talking to them in their room. Erika changed her baby in the west bedroom because it was less messy than the rest of the house following the officers’ search. Also, she went in that bedroom to get her clothes, but she changed in the bathroom.
During the September 1, 2009 search, one of the officers told Erika not to worry because she had not done anything and Erika believed she was going to be released. She told this to Maria, who gave her Lorenzo to care for and told her to take money from Maria’s purse. Erika already had $157 with her and she took $300 from Maria’s purse. She was not wearing clothing with pockets, so she stuck the money in her bra. When the police told her she was going to be arrested, she volunteered that she had money on her.
Justice testified that when Maria was arrested she did not hand her purse and jewelry to Erika, but placed her property on a table.
Erika never saw drugs or drug paraphernalia in the house, she was not aware drugs were in the house, and nothing that happened in the house made her believe drugs were being sold there. She does not use drugs or smoke marijuana. She did not even know what drugs look like. The brothers lived in the west bedroom and she had never seen the shoe box Justice found there. She first testified that she told Justice on September 1, 2009, that she did not know there were drugs in the house. Erika later testified that she was really scared and crying and she might have told Justice that she knew drugs were being sold from the house. Erika maintained, however, that she in fact did not know anything about drug sales there.
Jurisdictional Ruling and Disposition
After hearing closing arguments, the court ruled: “Based on the testimony and the evidence, including the exhibits which have been received in evidence, the Court is going to sustain the petition and find that the minor is in violation of Health and Safety Code sections 11378, 11359, as alleged in Count I [and II], and in Count III, in violation of Penal Code section 273a[, subdivision] (b), which is a misdemeanor.”
At an October 8, 2009 disposition hearing, the court declared Erika a ward of the court, designated the social services agency as the lead agency in the dual jurisdiction case, imposed conditions of probation, and ordered Erika placed at Valley of the Moon Children’s Home pending placement in a foster home.
II. Discussion
The sole issue raised on appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Erika possessed narcotics for sale. Erika concedes that there was a sufficient quantity of drugs to support an inference that they were possessed for sale rather than personal use. (See People v. Eckstrom (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 323, 332.) However, she contests the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that she possessed them.
Our review of a juvenile’s sufficiency of the evidence claim is the same as our review of such a claim following an adult conviction. (In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809.) “When appeal of a criminal conviction is based on insufficient evidence, the standard of review is whether ‘after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ (Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 319, italics in original; see also [citation]; People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576–578.) [¶] On review, the evidence must be substantial enough to support the finding of each essential element of the crime. Substantial evidence is that which is reasonable, credible and of solid value. [Citations.] The inquiry into the substantiality of the evidence is based on a review of the entire record. [Citations.] The trier of fact is responsible for weighing the evidence presented, resolving conflicts in the testimony and drawing reasonable inferences from the facts before it. [Citation.] If the findings are reasonable and supported by the evidence, reversal is not warranted because a contrary finding might also be reasonable.” (People v. Rushing (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 618, 621 (Rushing), parallel citations omitted.)
“The essential elements of the offense of unlawful possession of a controlled substance are actual or constructive possession in an amount sufficient to be used as a controlled substance with knowledge of its presence and its nature as a controlled substance. The elements may be proven by circumstantial evidence. [Citations.] [¶] Actual or constructive possession is the right to exercise dominion and control over the contraband or the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. [Citation.] Exclusive possession is not necessary. A defendant does not avoid conviction if his right to exercise dominion and control over the place where the contraband was located is shared with others. [Citations.]” (Rushing, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 621–622.) “Although proof of opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession [citation], possession may be imputed where the contraband is found in a location which is subject to joint dominion and control of accused and another. [Citations.]” (People v. Kanos (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 642, 652 (Kanos).)
In Rushing, the court of appeal affirmed a conviction for possession of cocaine where four persons were present in an apartment at the time it was searched, it was unknown who rented the apartment, officers found cocaine hidden in the false bottom of a WD-40 can located on a stereo speaker in the northeast bedroom, court documents with the defendant’s name and signature were also found in a desk drawer in the northeast bedroom, defendant was found sleeping in the southwest bedroom, other court documents with defendant’s name and signature were found in the southwest bedroom, and a narcotics pay/owe sheet listing the defendant’s first name and the quantity of cocaine found in the WD-40 can was folded in with the court documents found in the southeast bedroom. (Rushing, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at pp. 620–621 & fn. 1.) “The fact that [the defendant] had access to private areas of the apartment and left important personal papers in these locations is sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably infer that [the defendant] had the right to exercise dominion and control over the apartment where the cocaine was found. [¶]... He had access to the bedrooms of the apartment and to areas within these rooms generally considered to be the domain of persons with possessory rights.” (Id. at p. 622.) The court cited the pay/owe sheet as evidence the defendant knew of the presence of the cocaine (which was hidden in the false bottom of a household item). (Ibid.)
In Kanos, the court of appeal concluded there was sufficient evidence of drug possession where the defendant told his parole officer in March 1967 his address was on Elm Street in Inglewood, in March 1968 police observed the defendant walk down the driveway at that address with his wife and children at approximately 7:30 a.m., and at that time the defendant had possession of the keys to the residence, heroin was found in the pocket of a man’s jacket in a closet of the residence, and a box containing a scale and a white crystalline substance was found in a storage closet of the residence. (Kanos, supra, 14 Cal.App.3d at pp. 645–647.) “Unlawful possession may be inferred where narcotics are found... among [a defendant’s] personal effects, notwithstanding that someone else may have had the opportunity to deposit the contraband there.” (Id. at p. 653.)
In People v. Haynes, the court of appeal concluded there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for possession of marijuana for sale where police found the following items: marijuana seed in the television room near the spot where defendant had been standing; traces of marijuana, rolling papers and cash on the defendant’s person; a waxed sandwich bag containing marijuana in a woman’s sweater; marijuana debris in a purse; an empty package of rolling papers on a bedroom dresser; a man’s suit in the closet with a cleaning tag that bore with the defendant’s name and the address of the residence; waxed sandwich bags in the kitchen; and, under the house, two kilograms of marijuana worth approximately $1,100, waxed sandwich bags containing marijuana, and packaging materials. (People v. Haynes (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 1060, 1063–1064.) The evidence supported inferences that the defendant “was present on the night in question as a joint occupant of the premises with his [female] codefendant; and that he was not a mere visitor...” (id. at p. 1065), and that he “had knowledge of the presence of [the] marijuana and its narcotic character; had access thereto; and had joint control thereof...” (Id. at pp. 1064–1065).
We conclude that the evidence here is similarly sufficient to establish that Erika had knowledge of the presence of the drugs, and had at least joint control of them. Justice testified that Erika admitted that she lived in the Mission Boulevard house and that she knew drugs were being sold there. Erika concedes on appeal that Justice’s testimony constitutes substantial evidence that she had knowledge of drug activity in the residence. The trial court was entitled to credit Justice’s testimony regarding these admissions and discredit Erika’s denials. (Rushing, supra, 209 Cal.App.3d at p. 621; People v. Colds (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 860, 863.) Justice further testified that he found indicia of Erika’s residency (or dominion and control) in the west bedroom where methamphetamines, marijuana, and drug packaging materials were found. The indicia included a photograph that Justice testified appeared to be a picture of Erika, a benefits letter addressed to Erika, a purse that contained Erika’s mother’s identification, and women’s clothing. Erika acknowledged on the witness stand that the letter, purse and clothing were hers. Although she denied the photograph was of her, the court had an opportunity to view the photograph (Exhibit 7) and compare to Erika’s appearance in court. These indicia were sufficient to support an inference that Erika frequented the bedroom or resided there. Further evidence of Erika’s residency or dominion and control of the west bedroom is her use of the bedroom to change the children and her own clothes before they were taken into custody. There was also sufficient evidence that Erika was aware of the presence of narcotics in the west bedroom: the contraband was found in a duffel bag, cooler and box that were easily accessible to anyone who entered the room. In sum, Erika’s admissions to Justice, the indicia of Erika’s possessory interest in the west bedroom, and the barely disguised presence of narcotics in the west bedroom together constitute substantial evidence that Erika exercised joint dominion and control over the bedroom and knew that narcotics were present there.
Additional support for the conviction is supplied even by the defense evidence that Erika spent much of her time in the house, and by evidence of the pervasive presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia that would have put any occupant of the house on notice of the drug activity taking place there. By Erika’s own account, she spent many hours at the house from Monday to Thursday each week, she occasionally spent the night there, she brought her laundry to the house, and she considered Abel, Maria and their children to be her family. Defense counsel admitted that Erika “lived with her cousin’s family part of the time, or stayed there part of the time.” When the officers entered the house for the search, the doors to both bedrooms were open and Justice opined that all residents had access to all rooms in the house. There was evidence that every adult member of the household was either aware of, or directly involved in, the drug trafficking. Justice testified that he had observed Maximo engage in an apparent drug sale and Roberto engage in counter-surveillance in front of the house. Roberto was also seen reaching into the cooler during the search and Maximo’s indicia were found in the west bedroom-the same bedroom where officers smelled the odor of marijuana and found narcotics, cash and packaging material. This evidence supports an inference these two men were direct participants in drug trafficking. Jesus was also seen trying to escape through the back of the house when the search began, which suggests a consciousness of guilt and supports an inference he was also involved in drug trafficking. Abel was lying in the east bedroom, where officers found drugs, ammunition and Abel’s indicia in clothes hanging in the closet. When Maria drove up to the house during the search, she initially attempted to drive away again but was detained by police. Her indicia were also found in the east bedroom where drugs were found. Drugs were also found in the laundry room and based on the nature of that room the court could reasonably find that all members of the household accessed and used the room. In sum, the court could find that all adult members of the household were aware of and possibly directly participating in the narcotics activity at the house. Because Erika was at least a regular member of the household, if not a full-time resident, and because she played an adult role in the household (caring for the children and cooking for the workers), the evidence supported an inference that she too knew of, and had dominion and control over the drugs, which were kept in easily accessible living areas of the home.
In the trial court, the prosecutor argued that Erika was an employee of the organization that was trafficking drugs from the house and as an employee could be deemed to be in possession of all property of the organization. In support of this argument, she cited People v. Scott (2009) 45 Cal.4th 743, 746 (Scott), which so held with respect to a victim’s possession of property for purposes of proving robbery. Scott expressly distinguished possession for purposes of proving robbery from possession for purposes of establishing a drug possession offense. (Id. at p. 757–758.) The People do not pursue this line of reasoning on appeal. Therefore, we need not address Erika’s argument on the issue.
Finally, evidence that Erika attempted to secret a significant amount of cash from the house provided further support for the convictions. Justice testified that after Erika changed her clothes in the west bedroom and while she was being handcuffed she “was trying to have an amount of cash in one of her pants pockets and then also admitted that she had stored some cash in her bra while she was changing” and $457 in cash was found on her person. Justice also testified that he had found only “a small amount of cash” in the purse that was found in the west bedroom. This evidence supported an inference that Erika located and removed more than $400 from some location in the west bedroom other than her own purse, further supporting an inference she was aware of items located in the room that were not in plain view, which would include the narcotics, and further supporting the court’s finding that she had dominion and control over the room. This evidence would also support an inference that she participated in the drug trafficking and was taking cash proceeds of the trafficking with her. Although Erika provided an alternative explanation for the presence of the money on her person, the court was free to discredit her testimony. (See Haynes, supra, 253 Cal.App.2d at p. 1062 [possible exculpatory explanations do not warrant reversal of a conviction for insufficient evidence].) The court could also have found that Erika deliberately lied when she told Justice and later testified that she did not live at the Mission Boulevard house, and drawn an inference of consciousness of guilt from that false statement. (See People v. Kimble (1988) 44 Cal.3d 480, 496 [false statements may show consciousness of guilt].) Consciousness of guilt combined with evidence of mere access to drugs can constitute sufficient evidence to support a possession conviction. (People v. Redrick (1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 287–288.)
Erika incorrectly states on appeal that “[t]he only testimony relating to [her] possession of $457 in cash came from... herself.” As just noted, Justice testified that Erika “admitted that she had stored some cash in her bra while she was changing, ” and when he was asked how much she had in cash he testified, “It was I believe $457 that was found on her person after she changed.”
In sum, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that all elements of the drug possession offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Simons, Acting P. J., Needham, J.