People v. Mayer
| Decision Date | 09 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | B254286 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LAURA LYNNE MAYER, Defendant and Appellant. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA086796)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Michael Villalobos, Judge. Affirmed.
Joanna Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Laura Lynne Mayer (defendant) was convicted of commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 4591) and forgery (§ 470, subd. (d)). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence over her objections for lack of foundation and chain of custody; the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that to convict defendant of forgery it had to find she committed forgery in a particular store; the verdicts were irregular; there was prosecutorial misconduct; and her convictions must be reduced to misdemeanors. We affirm the judgment.
On October 28, 2011, Gina Scott was working as a manager at an Albertsons' store located in the City of Arcadia. Defendant approached Scott at the customer service desk. On three to four prior occasions, Scott had seen defendant in the store attempting to return merchandise. On this occasion, defendant sought to return vitamins for a refund. Defendant handed a receipt to Scott which indicated that the vitamins had been purchased at an Albertsons' store located in Tujunga. Scott called Mary Grady, the loss prevention officer, for assistance.
Grady approached the customer service desk and examined the purchase receipt. She testified that defendant was the person seeking the refund. Grady told defendant thatshe would be right back, and she took the purchase receipt2 into her office while Scott remained with defendant. Grady entered the transaction information from the purchase receipt into the Albertsons' computer system in an attempt to find the transaction. According to the information in the computer system, no vitamins were sold during the transaction listed on the receipt. The receipt appeared on its face to be authentic, but based on entering the transaction information from the receipt into the Albertsons' computer system, Grady did not believe it was an accurate record of the transaction. After Grady had been in her office for about 10 to 20 minutes, she returned to the customer service desk and found that defendant was no longer there.
Scott testified that defendant became "antsy" while waiting for her refund, and Scott went to Grady's office "to see what was taking [Grady] so long."3 When Scott returned to the customer service desk, defendant had left with the vitamins. Still photographs obtained from the store's surveillance video cameras were introduced into evidence at trial, and Scott testified that they depicted her and defendant at the service desk.
The prosecutor introduced evidence of similar "prior uncharged crimes" pursuant to Evidence Code section 1101.
On October 28, 2011, Kenneth Benjamin was working as a lobby supervisor at an Albertsons store located in the City of Glendora. Defendant had two bottles of vitamins in her possession and approached Benjamin at the customer service counter. Defendant gave Benjamin a purchase receipt and asked him to give her a refund for the vitamins. Benjamin generated a return receipt, and defendant signed it. Benjamin stapled togetherthe receipt for the purchase of the vitamins and the return receipt, placed the receipts in a drawer, and gave defendant a cash refund. Benjamin explained that thereafter the purchase receipt would typically go to "the office," and it eventually would be transferred to the corporate office.
The purchase receipt purportedly given to Benjamin by defendant was marked as Exhibit 6. At trial, Benjamin was unable to recognize Exhibit 6, but he stated that it appeared to be a valid Albertsons' receipt from the store in Tujunga.
Kimberly Sempson, an Albertsons loss prevention employee, testified that she investigated an incident involving the return of vitamins at the store located in Glendora. Sempson identified Exhibit 6 as being the purchase receipt presented in connection with a refund of vitamins at the store.
Sempson entered the transaction information listed on the purchase receipt into the store's computer system. The information in the computer did not match the transaction information listed on the receipt. Sempson therefore believed that the purchase receipt marked as Exhibit 6 was not authentic. A video recording depicting the transaction at the Glendora store matching the time on the return receipt was played for the jury.
On November 10, 2011, Christopher Holloway was working at an Albertsons store located in the City of Whittier, when a woman approached him and asked to return two bottles of vitamins, each valued at approximately $30. The woman handed Holloway a receipt for the purchase of the vitamins. Holloway verified that the products were listed on the receipt, and gave the woman a refund. Holloway testified that he was unable to identify defendant as the woman who returned the vitamins. Holloway placed the receipt in the register, and believed that thereafter the receipt would be transferred to the store's bookkeeper.
The receipt purportedly given to Holloway by defendant was marked as Exhibit 7. Holloway testified that he was unable to recognize the receipt that was marked as Exhibit 7, but he stated that it looked like a valid receipt.
Sempson, the Albertsons loss prevention employee, testified that she investigated the incident at the Albertsons' store located in Whittier, and identified Exhibit 7 as a receipt presented for a refund at that store. Sempson entered the transaction information listed on the purchase receipt into the store's computer system, but was unsuccessful in locating the transaction. Sempson therefore believed that the purchase receipt marked as Exhibit 7 was not authentic. A video recording depicting the transaction at the Whittier store matching the time on the return receipt was played for the jury.
On November 21, 2011, Carl Bonomo was working as a loss prevention specialist at an Albertsons store located in the City of Temecula. Defendant approached Bonomo at the customer service desk, said she wanted to return two bottles of vitamins that she had purchased from the Tujunga store, and gave the vitamins and a purchase receipt to Bonomo. Bonomo was suspicious of defendant's attempt to return the vitamins because earlier he had received a "Be on the Lookout" or "BOLO" report about a person attempting to return vitamins by presenting a fraudulent receipt. Defendant told him that she was returning the vitamins because her doctor said "it would counteract a prescription" she used. Bonomo recalled that these "exact words" were stated in the BOLO report.
Bonomo kept the vitamins and receipt, gave defendant a written trespass warning, and stated that she could be arrested for trespassing if she entered into "another Albertsons's building." Bonomo identified Exhibit 8 as a photocopy of the purchase receipt that defendant presented to him, and testified that he believed the receipt was not legitimate because the logo depicted on the receipt did not appear in the proper position. He identified defendant at trial as the person who attempted to return the vitamins.
Sempson testified that she investigated the incident, entered the transaction information listed on Exhibit 8 into the store's computer system, and was unsuccessful in locating the transaction. Sempson therefore believed that the receipt marked as Exhibit 8 was not authentic.
Defendant testified on her own behalf. She said that she purchased vitamins on many occasions; sometimes she bought them for personal use, and sometimes she put them in gift baskets to thank her business customers. She would return the vitamins if she had more than she needed. Defendant denied being in the Albertsons store in Arcadia on October 28, 2011.
Defendant also denied going to Albertsons stores in West Covina and San Dimas on October 28, 2011. When defendant was shown Exhibit 14, photographs from the security videos at the West Covina and San Dimas stores depicting refund transactions on October 28, 2011, she stated that the person in the photographs "looks like" her, but she was unsure whether she as the person depicted therein because the photographs were "grainy."
Defendant also denied being in Glendora on October 28, 2011, and denied going to an Albertsons store in Glendora on that date. Defendant admitted that the video recording from the Glendora Albertsons showed a person who looked like her, but she believes that the recording had been "doctored."
Defendant testified that she did not recall, but it is possible that she went to Albertsons in Whittier on November 10, 2011, and returned vitamins. If she went to the Whittier store then, she did not conduct a fraudulent transaction. Defendant said it was possible she was the person depicted in the video recording from the Albertsons' store in Whittier, but that the video recording was too "dark and grainy" for her to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial