People v. Duncan

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE LOVON DUNCAN, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Aug 17, 2007

No. H029275 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANDRE LOVON DUNCAN, Defendant and Appellant. H029275 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, August 17, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC587468

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

RUSHING, P.J.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 20, 2007, be modified as follows:

1. On page 19, after the last full paragraph ending with “plan and knowledge. ⁷ ” the following new paragraph is inserted:

Moreover, we find the partial error in admitting the evidence harmless. The evidence of identity was overwhelming and unrebutted. It is undisputed that defendant was at the scene. Officer Urban saw defendant make the sale and immediately confronted defendant, who ran. And Posey also identified as the seller. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome had the court admitted the evidence to show only common plan and knowledge. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

2. On page 23, line 6, the citation “People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836” is changed so the citation reads as follows:

People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.