People v. Stamps

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LATANYA A. STAMPS,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. A142424

(Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. 51315373)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Four

Filed October 28, 2016

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on September 30, 2016, be modified as follows:

1.        On page 9, after the sentence reading ?The Attorney General has proposed no hearsay exception that would render the Ident-A-Drug Web site contents admissible,? add as footnote 7 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

        ⁷ Throughout the appellate process, both parties have referred to the Ident-           A-Drug content as hearsay.  In a petition for rehearing, the Attorney        General suggests the Web site material is ?not hearsay? because it falls          within the exception for commercial lists and the like in Evidence Code          section 1340.  The point has been forfeited by failure to assert it earlier.              (Gentis v. Safeguard Business Systems, Inc. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1294,          1308 [issues cannot be raised for first time on petition for rehearing].)            Although we take no position on this issue, we note that a similar                argument was rejected in People v. Hard, supra, 342 P.3d at pages 575?        579 because the information was deemed insufficiently reliable.

     There is no change in the judgment.

     Respondent?s petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated:

Rivera, Acting P.J.