Court Opinion

ID: 9372532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 20:02:24.502071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.964176
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/23 In re M.S. 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re M.S., a Person Coming                                    2d Juv. No. B315690
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Super. Ct. No. YJ40570)
                                                               (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.S.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      M.S. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court declaring him
a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 602, and ordering the Department of Children and Family
Services to find suitable placement.
      This appeal involves M.S.’s acts in aiding and abetting the
robbery of a bus passenger of his cellular telephone and wallet.
Surveillance cameras captured M.S.’s actions during the robbery
and the videotapes were viewed by the juvenile court during
adjudication. M.S. now raises an evidentiary challenge to the
testimony of Los Angeles Police Detective Kelly Edwards
describing M.S.’s conduct in the videotapes. We reject M.S.’s
contentions and affirm.
            FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       On July 22, 2021, the prosecutor filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that M.S.
committed second degree robbery against A.V. (Pen. Code,
§ 211.)1
       On May 18, 2021, A.V. watched a soccer game on his
cellular telephone as he rode a bus in Los Angeles. Three or four
men approached A.V. and one man asked to borrow A.V.’s
telephone to make a call. A.V. refused the request and placed the
telephone in his pants pocket. The three men then grabbed A.V.,
pulled him from the bus, and forcibly took his telephone and
wallet. A.V. suffered an arm injury during the incident. The
men then ran away.
       At the adjudication, A.V. initially identified M.S. as one of
his assailants. He later equivocated, however, and said that his
identification might be mistaken.
                        Edwards’s Testimony
       Detective Edwards, a police officer for 20 years,
investigated the robbery. He watched the videotapes from the
bus’s surveillance cameras. He recognized M.S. in the videotape.
As the bus approached a stop, M.S. left his seat and stood in the
aisle holding two handrails while three men approached A.V.
M.S. left the bus while holding his hand to his ear or face and
appeared to watch the altercation behind him. The videotape

      1All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless
stated otherwise.

                                 2
then reflected three men pulling A.V. from the bus. The four men
(including M.S.) later ran in the same direction.
       Edwards opined that M.S. participated in the robbery of
A.V. by preventing A.V. from escaping: “My opinion is it was an
orchestrated robbery, where [M.S.] was standing, [blocking] the
avenue of escape for the victim, while the other individuals
attempted to take his belongings. [A]s the bu[s] comes to a stop,
[M.S.] stands up from his seat, moves to stand right in the
walkway, grabs both the handles, while the other defendants go
in and try to take the victim’s property at the same time.”
       On August 11, 2021, following a contested adjudication, the
juvenile court found the allegation of second degree robbery, a
felony, true, and it sustained the July 22, 2021, petition. On
other dates, the court sustained three additional wardship
petitions involving M.S. These petitions were: a June 15, 2020,
petition alleging the taking of a vehicle without consent (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); a July 23, 2021, petition alleging two
counts of second degree robbery and one count of assault by
means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§§ 211, 245,
subd. (a)(4)); and a July 27, 2021, petition alleging first degree
robbery of a transit passenger (§ 211).
       On October 4, 2021, the juvenile court held a disposition
hearing regarding the four petitions. The court then declared
M.S. a ward of the court and calculated a maximum period of
confinement of seven years eight months. It further ordered that
the Department of Children and Family Services find suitable
placement for M.S.
       M.S. appeals and contends that the juvenile court abused
its discretion by permitting Edwards to opine that the
surveillance videotapes reflected that M.S. acted in concert with

                                3
the other three robbery participants. The Attorney General
responds in part that M.S. has forfeited this issue by failing to
object specifically on grounds of improper opinion testimony.
(People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344, 397.)
                            DISCUSSION
       M.S. argues that Detective Edwards’s opinion that he was a
participant in an orchestrated robbery was irrelevant and
invaded the fact-finding province of the juvenile court. (People v.
Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 77 [witness’s opinion
on guilt or innocence inadmissible because it does not assist trier
of fact].) He asserts that the error was prejudicial because the
evidence against him was weak. M.S. adds that the opinion
evidence violated his rights to due process of law pursuant to the
federal constitution and rendered his trial fundamentally unfair.
       M.S. has forfeited this argument on appeal because he did
not specifically object on the grounds of improper opinion
testimony in the juvenile court. (People v. Chatman, supra, 38
Cal.4th 344, 397.) Although M.S. objected on grounds of
relevance and lack of foundation, these objections were not
sufficiently specific to preserve his argument of improper opinion
testimony.
       Forfeiture aside, Edwards’s testimony was helpful as a lay
witness to explain M.S.’s behavior in the videotapes. (People v.
Son (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 689, 697 [detective’s testimony helpful
because it explained “obscure details” in surveillance video].)
“[T]he standard is not whether the testimony was essential. It’s
whether it was helpful.” (Ibid.) Edwards’s testimony pointed out
subtle details in the videotapes that would assist the juvenile
court in its factfinding regarding M.S.’s involvement in the
incident on the bus. (People v. Phillips (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th

                                4
643, 685 [police officer offered lay opinion that stain on clothing
in videotape was blood].) Edwards, an experienced police officer
who had investigated robberies for two years, also explained the
differing roles of participants in robberies with more than one
perpetrator, i.e., a lookout.
       In any event, any error is harmless pursuant to any
standard of review. The juvenile court viewed the videotapes
when they were played in court. The court also heard the cross-
examination of Edwards concerning whether the videotapes
reflected M.S. directly taking A.V.’s telephone and wallet. The
court’s express findings reflected that it viewed and interpreted
the videotapes as reflecting M.S.’s participation in the robbery:
“From my view of the video, it does look like [M.S.] is aware of
what’s going on. I think he positions himself in the bus, just in
case [A.V.] tries to get away, or to block the other folks’ view from
what’s going on in front of the bus. [C]learly at the end of the
tape you see [M.S.] going away with the rest of the bunch and
showing that he’s a part of the group.” Thus, the court did not
blindly adopt Edwards’s opinion without examination and
consideration of the videotape evidence. We presume the court
understands its duties and follows the law absent evidence
otherwise. (People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114.)

                                  5
     The judgment is affirmed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                 GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                             6
        J. Christopher Smith, John C. Lawson II, Judges

             Superior Court County of Los Angeles

                ______________________________

      Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Gabriel Bradley, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               7