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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ANGELIC A REYNOSO

,
Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B 30 0803 (Super. Ct. No. BA467183 ) ( Los Angeles County)

Angelica Reynoso ap peals a n 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 w orkers ’

c ompensation insurance claim. Prior to trial, a prosecution investigator interviewed Reynoso in a recorded interview ;1

however, t he invest igator died before trial. Over Reynoso’s objections, the trial court decided that the prosecutor presented sufficient evidence of the recording’s authenticity, a nd it permitted the jury to listen to the recording. Reynoso appeals
th at ruling and argues t hat the prosecutor did not establish t hat 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 re ported that he had infectious sc abies. 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 Reyn oso may have touched the inmate ’s shoes. That same day, Reynoso or her former husband pur chased flooring from Lumber Liquidators. The receipt fo r the purchase states that the purch a se was for 1

, 0 49 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 ras h and believed it to be scabies due to the inmate exposure . Reynoso received treatment that day from a
medical clinic. On March 9, 20 16 , Reynoso informed her employer that she
believed that scabies had infe c ted her children and her residence. The emplo yer sent a professional cleaning crew to Reynoso’s
residence. The cleaners found an infestation of bedbugs, but not2

scabies. The crew steam

- cleaned the carpet, but did n ot advise Reynoso to replace the carpet with new flooring. Gina Ayers, an administ rative 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 receipt s 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 admi nistrator for
Gardena. Ayers also referred Reyno so to Retamosa regarding t he flooring expenses. Approximately one year following Reynoso’s report of exposure to scabies, she contacted Retamosa regarding reimbursement for replac ement 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 replac ement 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, t he claim was denied and Reynoso received no

re imburse ment 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 stated3

that the cleaning crew recommended that she repl ace 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 wor kers ’ 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 lo gg ed at the prosecutor’s office. The jury convicted Reynoso of workers’ c ompensation insurance fraud and insurance fraud. ( Ins. Code, § 18 71.4, 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 DISCUSSION 1 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 pr ior

to being logged at the prosecutor’s office : The defense does not know “if erasures, deletions, were ma de, insertions were made” or

“ if it has been altered.” The prosecutor responded that Downs
announced the start a nd 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 t he recording. Recordings are writi ngs as defined by section 250. To be admissible, a writing must be r elevant and authenticated. (§§ 350, 1401; People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 266 [statement of general rule] .) The trial court determines the issue
of authentica tion 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 cla ims 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 we ight 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 ann ounced 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 pro cedure for creating a CD from the recording and
then lo ggi ng 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 t o determin e prima facie authenticity. Indeed, d uring summation, defense counsel asserted that the jury should listen to the recording carefully
because it sound ed as though the recording was manipulated near page 13 of the transcript. ( People v. Goldsmit h

, supra , 596

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.)
D ISPOSITION
T he 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, Micha el 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
G eneral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.