Filed 10/22/20 P. v. Reynoso CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANGELICA REYNOSO,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B300803

(Super. Ct. No. BA467183)

(Los Angeles County)

Angelica Reynoso appeals an order of probation granted 

following her conviction of workers’ compensation insurance 

fraud and insurance fraud. (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. (a)(1); Pen 

Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1).) We conclude that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion by ruling that the prosecutor established 

a prima facie case that a recorded interview with Reynoso was 

authentic, and affirm.

This appeal concerns Reynoso’s fraudulent claim for 

reimbursement for residential flooring as part of her workers’ 

compensation insurance claim. Prior to trial, a prosecution 

investigator interviewed Reynoso in a recorded interview; 
1

however, the investigator died before trial. Over Reynoso’s 

objections, the trial court decided that the prosecutor presented 

sufficient evidence of the recording’s authenticity, and it 

permitted the jury to listen to the recording. Reynoso appeals 

that ruling and argues that the prosecutor did not establish that 

the recording was not manipulated or altered. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Reynoso was employed as a service officer by the Gardena 

Police Department and worked at the city jail. On February 18, 

2016, Service Officer Brian Lee worked at the jail and booked an 

inmate who later reported that he had infectious scabies. A

hospital visit confirmed the inmate’s infection. Reynoso was not 

working at the jail on February 18, 2016, but did work the 

following day.

On February 20, 2016, the inmate was transferred to 

another jail. Lee packaged the inmate’s property but Reynoso 

may have touched the inmate’s shoes. 

That same day, Reynoso or her former husband purchased 

flooring from Lumber Liquidators. The receipt for the purchase 

states that the purchase was for 1,049 square feet of flooring for 

$2,500. Over the next few months, Reynoso purchased additional 

flooring from Lumber Liquidators. 

On February 23, 2016, Reynoso reported to her employer 

that she had a rash and believed it to be scabies due to the 

inmate exposure. Reynoso received treatment that day from a 

medical clinic. 

On March 9, 2016, Reynoso informed her employer that she 

believed that scabies had infected her children and her residence. 

The employer sent a professional cleaning crew to Reynoso’s 

residence. The cleaners found an infestation of bedbugs, but not 
2

scabies. The crew steam-cleaned the carpet, but did not advise 

Reynoso to replace the carpet with new flooring. 

Gina Ayers, an administrative analyst for the Gardena 

Police Department, received a written workers’ compensation 

claim regarding Reynoso’s scabies exposure. The claim form 

stated that the date of Reynoso’s exposure was February 19, 

2016. Reynoso later brought flooring receipts to Ayers and 

inquired whether workers’ compensation would reimburse her. 

Ayers transmitted the claim to Sonia Retamosa, an adjustor for 

the third-party workers’ compensation administrator for 

Gardena. Ayers also referred Reynoso to Retamosa regarding the

flooring expenses.

Approximately one year following Reynoso’s report of 

exposure to scabies, she contacted Retamosa regarding 

reimbursement for replacement flooring. Reynoso stated that her 

physician advised her to replace her flooring. Reynoso sent 

flooring invoices to Retamosa dated from February to May 2016, 

amounting to $8,640.22. 

Retamosa advised Reynoso to either submit a physician’s 

note regarding the flooring expense or sign a release for her 

medical records. Reynoso replied that the replacement 

recommendation came from the cleaning crew who cleaned her 

residence. Retamosa recommended that the flooring expense 

claim be denied because of lack of evidence of a medical necessity. 

In fact, the claim was denied and Reynoso received no 

reimbursement for the flooring.

Recorded Interview with Investigator Michael Downs

(Downs recording)

On January 30, 2018, Downs conducted a recorded 

interview with Reynoso at the police department. Reynoso stated 
3

that the cleaning crew recommended that she replace the carpet 

in her residence to remove a bedbug infestation. Acknowledging 

that she had limited contact with the infected inmate before 

February 20, 2016, Reynoso explained that she mistakenly 

included the February 20, 2016, flooring receipt in her workers’

compensation claim. Reynoso also stated that the bedbug 

infestation stemmed from her contact with homeless inmates at 

the jail. She added that Sergeant Rodney Gonzales had informed 

her that the police department would reimburse her for the 

flooring expenses. 

At trial, the parties stipulated that the voices heard on the 

recording were those of Downs and Reynoso. Henry Valdez, a 

prosecution investigator, testified that office protocol required the 

downloading of a recorded interview and production of a CD, 

which is then logged at the prosecutor’s office.

The jury convicted Reynoso of workers’ compensation 

insurance fraud and insurance fraud. (Ins. Code, § 1871.4, subd. 

(a)(1); Pen. Code, § 550, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court suspended 

imposition of sentence and placed Reynoso on formal probation 

for three years, with terms and conditions. The court also 

imposed fines and fees and informed Reynoso that if she 

completed 300 hours of community service during the first year of 

felony probation, she could seek reduction of the felony offenses 

to misdemeanor offenses. 

Reynoso appeals and contends that the recorded interview 

was not sufficiently authenticated. 
4

DISCUSSION1

Reynoso argues that only the investigator’s testimony can 

establish that the recording is accurate, complete, and without 

alteration. She correctly asserts that the proponent of a 

recording bears the burden of establishing authenticity. Reynoso 

contends that admission of the recording into evidence is 

prejudicial pursuant to any standard of review. She points out 

that the prosecutor discussed the recording extensively during 

summation. 

At trial, Reynoso asserted that only Downs, now deceased, 

could authenticate the recording. Otherwise, Reynoso argued 

that the recording could have been manipulated or altered prior 

to being logged at the prosecutor’s office: The defense does not 

know “if erasures, deletions, were made, insertions were made” or 

“if it has been altered.” The prosecutor responded that Downs 

announced the start and finish times of the recording, amounting 

to 44 minutes, and the play length would confirm that time. 

Reynoso agreed that the transcripts offered by each party did not 

contain material differences. She also did not suggest any 

specific alterations in the recording.

Recordings are writings as defined by section 250. To be 

admissible, a writing must be relevant and authenticated. 

(§§ 350, 1401; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266

[statement of general rule].) The trial court determines the issue 

of authentication as a preliminary fact. (§ 403, subd. (a)(3); 

Goldsmith, at p. 266.) Section 1400 defines authentication as 

“the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it 

is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is.” 

1 All statutory references hereafter are to the Evidence 

Code.
5

“Essentially, what is necessary is a prima facie case. ‘As long as 

the evidence would support a finding of authenticity, the writing 

is admissible. The fact conflicting inferences can be drawn 

regarding authenticity goes to the document’s weight as evidence, 

not its admissibility.’ ” (Goldsmith, at p. 267.) Authentication 

may be supplied by witness testimony or circumstantial evidence, 

among other methods. (Id. at p. 268.) The trial court possesses 

the discretion to determine authenticity of a recording and permit 

its admission into evidence. (Id. at p. 266; People v. Gonzalez

(2006) 38 Cal.4th 932, 953.)

The trial court acted within its discretion by deciding that 

the prosecutor established a prima facie showing of authenticity 

for the Downs recording. The parties stipulated that the voices 

on the regarding were Downs and Reynoso. The parties also 

agreed that their respective transcripts of the recording had no 

material differences. At the beginning and end of the recording, 

Downs announced the time. From this information, the court 

could measure the duration of the interview and decide that it 

was complete. Downs also stated the date and location of the 

interview at the inception of the recording. Valdez testified 

regarding the procedure for creating a CD from the recording and 

then logging it at the prosecutor’s office. 

Finally, Reynoso did not point to any specific alterations or 

deletions that may have been performed, a relevant but slight 

factor in assisting the trial court to determine prima facie 

authenticity. Indeed, during summation, defense counsel 

asserted that the jury should listen to the recording carefully 

because it sounded as though the recording was manipulated 

near page 13 of the transcript. (People v. Goldsmith, supra, 59 
6

Cal.4th 258, 267 [trier of fact ultimately determines authenticity 

of document or recording].)

O’Laskey v. Sortino (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 241, overruled 

on other grounds by Flanagan v. Flanagan (2002) 27 Cal.4th 766, 

776, footnote 4, does not assist Reynoso. That decision concerned 

the complete absence of evidence to establish the authenticity of a 

tape recording, including identification of the voices or evidence 

of the date and location of the recording. (Id. at pp. 249-250.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment (order of probation) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.
7

Norman J. Shapiro, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Stone Busailah, Michael P. Stone, Muna Busailah and

Robert Rabe for Defendant and Appellant

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant 

Attorney General, Idan Ivri and David A. Voet, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.