Opinion
G054497
03-29-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIE CEJA, Defendant and Appellant.
Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF4059) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed. Barbara A. Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted defendant Julie Ceja of assault with a deadly weapon, a high-heeled shoe (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and found true she inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). The trial court placed defendant on probation, with 180 days in county jail.
On appeal, defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to prove she was the person who assaulted the victim. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Since the standard of review is substantial evidence, "we set forth the facts here in the light most favorable to the judgment. [Citations.]" (People v. Lee (2011) 51 Cal.4th 620, 625, fn. 5.)
1. Prosecution Evidence
One night, Kevin Morton, went to Heat Ultra Lounge (the club). Around 2:00 a.m., the club closed. As Morton was walking out, he noticed four or five women picking on a guy and slapping him around. Morton felt bad and told the women to stop. One of the women said "Shut the F up." When Morton asked her not to talk to him that way, another woman slapped him on the face. Morton became angry. He told the woman who had slapped him he was a trainer, and she needed to train with him because she needed to lose weight. Morton also challenged a man with the women to a "tussle," stating they should handle the matter like men. Morton began walking toward the parking garage. The women followed him; they were angry and cursing at him.
Suddenly, Morton "heard a loud smack" and could not see out of his right eye. At first, Morton did not know he had been hit or what had happened. He realized he had been hit when blood started gushing out of his eye. He thought he had been hit from behind but was not sure because it happened so quickly. Morton did not see the person "come at [him] with the heel [of a shoe]." But when he looked up, he "saw a girl with a shoe in her hand, so [he] knew" he had been hit by the heel of the shoe. He also knew this particular woman had hit him because she "like gloated that she hit [him]."
Morton pointed her out to the police. When Morton made the out-of-court identification, he was "[a]bsolutely 100 percent" sure that she was the person who had struck him in the face with the high heel. At trial, Morton would not look at defendant or identify her as the person who hit him because the incident was too traumatic and emotional for him to think about. On cross-examination, he stated he did not remember what the woman who hit him looked like "but at the time of the incident [he] clearly knew what she looked like." He further testified that when he identified her, police officers told him they knew already because they "saw the whole thing."
At the time of the incident, police officer Ryan Wardle was patrolling the scene outside the club. The area was well lit. Wardle saw a woman strike a man in the face with a black object. Wardle was about 20 to 30 yards away and could not determine what the object was. The man was facing in Wardle's direction but the woman had her back turned so Wardle could not see her face. Wardle could see the woman had on a black blouse, but was unable to see what she was wearing on the bottom. When Wardle approached, Morton pointed to a woman and said he was struck in the face with a shoe by "that girl right there, and he described her as wearing a red dress - a red skirt." The woman Morton pointed to was defendant. Defendant was standing about 10 to 15 feet away with a group of people, watching Wardle speak with Morton. She held a pair of black shoes in her hands.
Wardle attempted to speak with defendant, but she turned around and walked away. Defendant also refused to comply with Wardle's multiple verbal commands to stop. Wardle had to physically grab defendant's arms to stop her. Even then, defendant continued to try to pull away, requiring Wardle's partner to come over and assist in placing defendant in handcuffs.
Wardle also spoke with Ali Mataafa, a security guard working at the club that night. Mataafa told Wardle he had been standing next to Morton and saw defendant strike Morton in the face with the heel of her shoe.
At trial, Mataafa testified that around 2:00 a.m., he was outside the club. He saw a verbal altercation around 50 feet away and walked over to it. As he arrived at the scene, people started swinging at each other. Mataafa and other security guards stopped the fight. He could not remember if he saw what caused Morton to bleed.
Mataafa testified he told police officers he had focused his attention on Morton, who was bleeding, while other security guards and the crowd were "pointing towards a lady that had . . . a shoe or a high heel in a red dress." Mataafa denied standing next to Morton or that he told the police he saw someone hit Morton in the face with a shoe. According to Mataafa, Morton "was pissed and he was pointing towards a lady, a lady in red, and so did the crowd."
Mataafa acknowledged the events were fresher in his mind at the time of the incident. He also conceded he had identified someone to the police as the person who had hit the male with the high heel. However, "[a]ll [he] remember[ed] was . . . they described a lady in red, in a red dress, and we had contained her and the police came and they did their business." On cross-examination, Mataafa testified he identified defendant as that person because Morton and the crowed had pointed at her, not because Mataafa had independently witnessed her hitting Morton.
2. Defense Evidence
Defendant and one of her friends, Monserrat Castro, blamed the attack on Stephanie Ruiz. On the night of the assault, defendant went the club with her friends Castro and Mariana Daniel, along with others including Ruiz, on a party bus.
Castro testified that after the club closed around 2:00 a.m., she sat outside with defendant and others, including Ruiz, waiting for the party bus to pick them up. Castro was wearing a blue top, with a black skirt. Most of the women outside the club were holding their shoes, including defendant, Ruiz, and probably Daniel. Castro was wearing her shoes.
A man tried to talk to Castro but she was not interested. Morton walked by and laughed. Castro told Morton to mind his own business. Morton responded by saying, "Lose some weight you fat bitch." Castro and Ruiz stood up and walked after him. Defendant was next to Castro and pulled her back. As defendant pulled Castro back, Ruiz disappeared and "everyone went crazy after that." Ruiz was wearing all black. Castro did not mention Ruiz to the defense investigator.
Castro looked up and saw Morton holding his eye, which was bleeding. She did not see what caused his eye to bleed. Defendant was next to her, pulling her back. They were shocked and wondering who did that to Morton. As security and the police arrived, defendant and Castro stood there waiting because the bus had not arrived. Defendant never approached nor pushed Morton but remained by Castro's side during the entire incident.
Daniel testified that she, Castro and defendant left the club around 2:00 a.m. and went outside to wait for the party bus. Daniel was wearing a red blouse, a black skirt, and black heels. As they were waiting, Castro suddenly stood up and started walking, arguing with a man. Defendant followed Castro and held her back. Daniel and defendant both held their shoes in their hands. The next thing Daniel knew, the police arrived and took defendant. Daniel did not know why because defendant had been next to her the entire time. Daniel never saw defendant approach, assault or confront anyone.
Defendant testified that around 2:00 a.m., she exited the club with Castro, Daniel and others, including Ruiz. Ruiz was wearing a black dress and black high heels. Defendant was wearing a black blouse with "maroon-type skirt and black high heels." As they waited for the party bus to arrive, defendant took off her shoes and held them in her hands. Others had their shoes off as well, including Daniel and Ruiz. Castro told Morton it was "none of [his] business" and to go away. Morton called Castro a "fat bitch." Castro got up and started walking after him, followed by Ruiz and another woman.
When defendant saw Castro arguing with Morton, defendant went after Castro and tried to hold her back. Defendant saw Ruiz throw a shoe, say something, and run away. Defendant then saw Morton holding his eye. Defendant was shocked and stood there; she did not run because she had nothing to do with it. A police officer walked toward her but she refused to be arrested because she did not do it.
Defendant admitted she never identified Ruiz to the police as the person who assaulted Morton, despite numerous opportunities. Instead, she believed it was more important to threaten to sue the police and to tell them to check the surveillance video.
The defense also called an expert in eyewitness identification. Among other things, the expert testified about the inaccuracy of the human memory and the numerous factors that can influence an eyewitness identification.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the evidence is insufficient to prove she was the person who assaulted Morton. She contends the out-of-court eyewitness identifications were insufficient because they were "essentially repudiated" at trial. We disagree.
People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252, 257 (Cuevas) held "the sufficiency of an out-of-court identification to support a conviction should be determined under the substantial evidence test . . . that is used to determine the sufficiency of other forms of evidence to support a conviction." Thus, "'"we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." [Citation.] We determine "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." [Citation.] In so doing, a reviewing court "presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence." [Citation.]'" (People v. Williams (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1244, 1281.)
"Weaknesses in the testimony of eyewitnesses are to be evaluated by the jury. [Citation.] A jury's finding will not be reversed unless it is clearly shown that under no hypothesis is there sufficient evidence to support it. [Citation.] As long as substantial evidence supports the jury's finding, the possibility that the jury could reasonably have reached a different conclusion does not justify reversal. [Citations.]" (People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 59.)
"Identification of the defendant by a single eyewitness may be sufficient to prove the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of a crime. [Citation.] Moreover, a testifying witness's out-of-court identification is probative for that purpose and can, by itself, be sufficient evidence of the defendant's guilt even if the witness does not confirm it in court." (People v. Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 480; see Evid. Code, § 411 ["Except where additional evidence is required by statute, the direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact"]; People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1052 ["Even when there is a significant amount of countervailing evidence, the testimony of a single witness that satisfies the [substantial evidence] standard is sufficient to uphold the finding"].)
"[W]hen the circumstances surrounding the identification and its weight are explored at length at trial, where eyewitness identification is believed by the trier of fact, that determination is binding on the reviewing court. [Citation.]" (In re Gustavo M. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1497; accord, People v. Mohamed (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 515, 521.) "'Apropos the question of identity, to entitle a reviewing court to set aside a jury's finding of guilt the evidence of identity must be so weak as to constitute practically no evidence at all.' [Citations.]" (Mohamed, at p. 521.)
Applying these principles and assuming the existence of every fact the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, we conclude a reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was the person who hit Morton. Morton testified that right after he was hit, "he saw a girl with a shoe" and knew she had hit him with the heel of her shoe. At the time he made the out-of-court identification of defendant, he was "[a]bsolutely 100 percent sure" it was her. Although he refused to look at or identify defendant at trial, he testified he "clearly knew what she looked like" at the time of the incident and identified her to the police.
Wardle testified that when he reached the scene of the incident, Morton pointed to defendant as the person who had struck him and described her as wearing a red dress or skirt. Wardle was about 20 to 30 yards away and saw a woman with a black top strike Morton with a black object.
Defendant testified she was wearing a black top with a "maroon-type skirt," and black high heeled shoes. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the color "maroon" as "a dark red." (Merriam-Webster Online Dict. <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/maroon> [as of Mar. 27, 2018].) Ruiz was wearing all black and neither Castro nor Daniel had on a black top. Thus, based on her own testimony, only defendant's attire matched the descriptions given by Morton and Wardle.
Morton's identification of defendant is not without flaws. He testified he identified defendant as his assailant because she "like gloated that she hit [him]. . . . kind of like when you hit someone and you're like yeah. It was like that type of moment." By itself, Morton's identification of defendant on that basis might have been too speculative to affirm defendant's conviction. But it was corroborated by other evidence presented. In particular, Wardle testified he spoke to Mataafa immediately after the incident. Mataafa told him he was standing next to Morton at the time of the assault and saw defendant strike Morton in the face with the heel of her shoe. At trial, Mataafa denied making these statements to Wardle, but admitted Morton had pointed to a lady in a red dress or skirt. He also admitted the incident was fresher in his mind at the time it occurred and he had identified someone to the police as the person who hit Morton.
The prosecution also presented evidence of flight and resistance to arrest to show consciousness of guilt. (See Pen. Code, § 1127c; CALCRIM No. 372; People v. Garcia (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 261, 283 ["Evidence of a defendant's resistance to arrest, like evidence of flight, is admissible as evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt"].) Wardle testified that despite his numerous verbal commands to stop, defendant refused and Wardle had to grab her arms. Even then, she tried to pull away, requiring Wardle's partner to assist in handcuffing her. By her own testimony, defendant refused to be arrested and never identified Ruiz as the person who assaulted Morton.
Based on these facts, the jury could reasonably deduce defendant was the person who had assaulted Morton. Thus, substantial evidence supports the judgment.
In her appellate briefs, defendant emphasizes her version of the facts, discounting or ignoring the substantial evidence against her. Specifically, she claims Morton and Mataafa only identified defendant as the woman in the red skirt because the crowd had pointed at her; Mataafa repudiated his statement to Wardle that he saw defendant hit Morton; Mataafa could not see much given his distance from the scene and the crowd in between; Wardle "said the attacker wore a black skirt" but on cross-examination said "he could not see the assailant's below-the waist-clothing"; and many of the women outside the club at the time of the incident wore red and black, and held their high heels in their hands. Defendant further argues that her "flight did not necessarily show guilt of the charged offense, as opposed to consciousness of being involved in something that got ugly, and not wanting to be arrested."
Defendant misstates the evidence in this regard. Wardle testified the attacker wore a black shirt, not a black skirt.
These arguments amount to nothing more than a request that this court reweigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the jury. This we cannot do. We resolve neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 41; People v. Cortes (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 62, 81 [where an appellant "merely reargues the evidence in a way more appropriate for trial than for appeal," we are bound by the trier of fact's determination].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
THOMPSON, J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, ACTING P. J. GOETHALS, J.