Court Opinion

ID: 9720412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:29:43.009947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:17.681249
License: Public Domain

STANIFORTH, J*—
I concur in the judgment of reversal as well as affirmance of each of the specified counts.
I do not agree, however, with each of the strands of the multichorded reasoning offered to support the conclusion the trial court erred in admitting evidence of uncharged acts which portray Kronemyer as unlawfully appropriating Bailey’s tax refund checks. Such evidence, properly grounded in fact, prepositioned with appropriate cautionary instructions may be admissible on any retrial of the reversed embezzlement counts. The error, which legitimates our conclusion of trial court error in admitting this evidence, is found in the court’s failure to conduct a minitrial on the issues plus its taking the issue from the jury in declaring the proffered prior uncharged acts were crimes. On any retrial of the reversed counts such errors are capable of correction.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 13, 1987, and respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 14, 1987.

Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.