Opinion ID: 844220
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Uncharged Robbery and Shooting

Text: Defendant contends that evidence of the robbery and shooting of Augustus Guardino at the Hughes Market in December 1987 should not have been admitted in aggravation at the penalty phase because the evidence identifying him as the perpetrator was insufficient. Because at trial defendant did not object to the evidence on this ground, the claim is forfeited. (People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1052.) In any event, the claim lacks merit. During the trial, Augustus Guardino identified defendant as the person who robbed and shot him. His testimony, which was not physically impossible or inherently improbable, provided substantial evidence of defendant‟s identity as the perpetrator. (See People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) At trial, defendant argued that Guardino‟s identification 65 of him was unreliable because, among other things, Guardino saw the gunman for only a few seconds, he initially described the gunman as having a mole on his upper lip, and his identification was influenced by a composite drawing he saw in a newspaper. Such issues affecting witness credibility were for the jury to resolve. They do not alter our conclusion that substantial evidence supports defendant‟s identity as the perpetrator of the Hughes Market crimes.