Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Superior Court County of Los Angeles Super. Ct. No. BA307346, William C. Ryan, Judge
Carol S. Boyk, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorneys General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Sonya Roth, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GILBERT, P.J.
A jury convicted Cesar Daniel Rivas of one count of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460.) He contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his poverty and drug use. We affirm.
FACTS
Francisco Colocho and Jose Padilla lived together in a one-bedroom house for 28 years. They knew Rivas since he was born. Rivas's father was a friend of theirs and his sister lived next door. Colocho had seen Rivas many times in the neighborhood. On one or two occasions, Rivas appeared to be on drugs.
Rivas would ask Colocho for money, and if Colocho had a couple of dollars, he would give them to him. Two weeks prior to August 5, 2006, Rivas approached Colocho as he worked in his garden and asked Colocho for $20. Colocho told him he did not have any money and Colocho left. Rivas had asked Colocho for money three times before August 6, 2005.
On the morning of August 5, 2005, Colocho went into the bedroom to clean some jewelry. He kept the jewelry in a black box inside his dresser drawer. He opened the box and removed three rings, two bracelets, a necklace and some earrings. He decided it was too late in the morning to clean them and put everything away. Colocho left the house at 8:00 a.m.
Padilla was the only one home the rest of the morning. He kept the front door closed and locked. Padilla went out to run some errands at about 1:00 p.m. He closed and locked the door when he left. When he returned home around 3:00 p.m., he left the front door open because of the heat. Padilla and Colocho typically left the front door open in the summer because the house has no air conditioning. Padilla had been home for about 15 minutes. He was in the kitchen cooking when he looked into the living room. He saw Rivas crawling on the living room floor. Padilla was startled and made a noise. Rivas stood up, said, "Hi," and left the house. Padilla had never invited Rivas into the house. In fact, he had not invited anyone into the house that day.
The next morning as Colocho was getting ready for church, he noticed his jewelry was missing. Padilla told him that Rivas was the only person who had been in the house. Colocho called the police. The police arrested Rivas at about 8:30 that morning. He had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and showed signs of being under the influence of methamphetamine. The police could not perform a full drug evaluation because Rivas refused to cooperate. Rivas had no money on him when he was arrested.
Rivas offered no evidence on his defense.
DISCUSSION
Rivas contends the trial court erred in allowing evidence of his poverty and drug use as a motive for burglary.
Generally, evidence of a defendant's poverty and drug use are inadmissible to show a motive for burglary. (See People v. Edelbacher (1989) 47 Cal.3d 983, 1024 [evidence of poverty, without more, is inadmissible to establish motive]; People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897, 906 [evidence defendant was drug addict inadmissible to prove financial motive for robbery].) The general rule applies, however, only where such evidence tends to prove remotely or to an insignificant degree a material fact in the case. (See People v. Felix (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1392.)
Evidence of financial need before the crime and sudden wealth afterwards is admissible to prove theft. (See People v. Edelbacher, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 1024.) But here common experience teaches us that even the impoverished obtain alcohol and drugs. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of Rivas's poverty.
Nevertheless, the error was harmless. Padilla kept the door locked all day until about 3:00 p.m., when he returned home from running errands. Rivas had not been invited into the house and no one but Padilla, Colocho and Rivas were in the house that day. Shortly after returning home, Padilla noticed Rivas crawling on the living room floor. When Rivas realized Padilla saw him Rivas stood up, said, "Hi," and left. There is simply no rational explanation for Rivas's actions other than that he had stolen the jewelry and was trying to escape without being noticed. There is no reasonable probability Rivas would have obtained a more favorable result had the challenged evidence not been admitted. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: YEGAN, J., COFFEE, J.