People v. Adanandus (157 Cal. App. 4th 496, 2007)

Opinion

HORNER, J.

Defendant Pierre Adanandus appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following his jury trial convictions for murder and attempted murder. Defendant contends (1) the trial court improperly denied his Wheeler/Batson* motion, and (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct on closing argument. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On April 15, 2005, police responded to reports of a shooting on 65th Avenue in Oakland. Multiple shots were fired from a passing minivan into a station wagon that was parked in a driveway. Ronald Delk, his brother Anthony Delk, and his cousin Joe Wills were seated in the station wagon while talking to their uncle, Eric Delk, who was standing outside the vehicle. In the shooting, Joe Wills was killed and Ronald Delk was shot in the arm. The minivan was later found abandoned and burned. Expended cartridge casings recovered from the scene were subjected to laboratory examination and found to have been fired from a single AK-style rifle. Witnesses stated that there were three African-American males in the minivan. Defendant was subsequently identified as the shooter.

On November 16, 2005, an information was filed charging defendant on count one with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and on count two and three of first degree attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). On each count, the information also alleged personal and intentional use of a firearm causing great bodily injury (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d), 12022.7, subd. (a)). Also, the first degree murder count carried a driveby special allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21)).

Jury selection began on September 19, 2006. On October 3, 2006, the trial court denied defendant’s Wheeler/Batson motion with respect to the prosecutor’s exercise of three peremptory challenges against African-American Jurors Jonet H., Betty C. and Channing W. The prosecution launched its case on October 5 and it was submitted to the jury on October 11. On October 12, 2006, the jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three counts and found all allegations true.

On December 8, 2006, defendant was sentenced to life without parole on count one, life with the possibility of parole on count two consecutive to count one, and a concurrent life with the possibility of parole on count three. A notice of appeal was filed on the day of sentencing.

Discussion

I. Wheeler/Batson Motion

A. Applicable Legal Standards

The use of peremptory challenges to excuse prospective jurors based on race violates the federal and state Constitutions. (Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 89; People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 184 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 118 P.3d 496]; Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 216-211.) A Wheeler/Batson motion “is timely if made before jury impanelment is completed because ‘the impanelment of the jury is not deemed complete until the alternates are selected and sworn.’ ” (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 970 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 654, 51 P.3d 874].)

“In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that Batson states the procedure and standard to be employed by trial courts when challenges such as defendant’s are made. ‘First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” [Citations.] Second, once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the “burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion” by offering permissible race-neutral justifications for the strikes. [Citations.] Third, “[i]f a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination.” ’ ” (People v. Cornwell (2005) 37 Cal.4th 50, 66-67 [33 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 117 P.3d 622] (Cornwell), quoting Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 168 [162 L.Ed.2d 129, 125 S.Ct. 2410] (Johnson).) Moreover, “[Johnson] explained] that ‘a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.’ [Citation.] The defendant having shown membership in a cognizable class, and keeping in mind ‘ “that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits ‘those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate,’ ” ’ the defendant ‘ “must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.” ’ ” (Cornwell, supra, at p. 67.)

The three-step Batson analysis, however, is not so mechanical that the trial court must proceed through each discrete step in ritual fashion. Thus, the trial court may invite the prosecutor to state race-neutral reasons for the challenged strikes before announcing its finding on whether a defendant met the first step of the Batson test by making out a prima facie case of discrimination. (People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, 343, fn. 13 [60 Cal.Rptr.3d 209, 160 P.3d 84] [“[I]t is the better practice for the trial court to have the prosecution put on the record its race-neutral explanation for any contested peremptory challenge, even when the trial court may ultimately conclude no prima facie case has been made out. This may assist the trial court in evaluating the challenge and will certainly assist reviewing courts in fairly assessing whether any constitutional violation has been established.”]; see also People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 723-724 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485] [even where no prima facie case found, court may properly consider reasons actually given by the prosecutor].)

Moreover, where the “ 1 “trial court denies a Wheeler motion without finding a prima facie case of group bias the reviewing court considers the entire record of voir dire. [Citations.] As with other findings of fact, we examine the record for evidence to support the trial court’s ruling. Because Wheeler motions call upon trial judges’ personal observations, we view their rulings with ‘considerable deference’ on appeal. [Citations.] If the record ‘suggests grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged’ the jurors in question, we affirm.” ’ ” (People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 116-117 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887].)

B. The Trial Court’s Prima Facie Ruling

(D

The trial court invited the prosecutor to offer his reasons for the challenged strikes before issuing any ruling on defendant’s Wheeler/Batson motion. After the prosecutor concluded his remarks, the court invited comment from defense counsel before ruling as follows: “The court will find that, certainly as to the first [Juror H.] and last [Juror W.], it’s not really a close issue; that there is even a prima facie indication there isn’t a prima facie case [szc]. Ms. [H.] clearly is somebody who the prosecutor would not want on the jury by her answers. ... As to Ms. [C.], she may have been a fair juror to both sides, as would anybody, maybe. The reality is that any person with a child, an only child, apparently, would have problems that came out, and came out more, could create a certain justification to use a peremptory. [][] Understating [szc], I still think . . . that probably I should make a finding that there has not been a prima facie case made in the circumstances of the entire case. [][] We have heard the full explanation. I accept it as accurate, as truthful. I do not see race as an issue. Assuming I didn’t make a prima facie mling, I would then accept [the prosecutor’s explanations]. I would do so on the whole record. He has accurately stated and pinpointed at length just the areas that I think any prosecutor would have a problem with . . . any juror, regardless of race, [f] I’m doing this when confronted with the reality that before we even had questions of two of the three, [the prosecutor] was accepting a jury that did have an African-American on it, and we’re about to get a jury that does. H] That is the court’s ruling. Your Wheeler motion is denied.”

Arguably, there is an element of ambiguity about whether the trial court actually made a finding that defendant had failed to show a prima facie case of discrimination. Nonetheless, from the totality of the trial court’s statements, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, we conclude that the trial court did indeed find that defendant had not established a prima facie case.

However, it is also clear that the trial court made no reference to the standard it applied in determining that a prima facie case had not been established. The significance of this is that until Johnson (decided on June 13, 2005), California law held that a defendant challenging a strike under Wheeler/Batson had to “ ‘show that it is more likely than not the other party’s peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on impermissible group bias.’ ” (Johnson, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 168.) In Johnson, however, the high court held “California’s ‘more likely than not’ standard is an inappropriate yardstick by which to measure the sufficiency of a prima facie case.” (Ibid.) The high court declared the appropriate standard to be that “a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson’s first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.” (Id. at p. 170.)

After Johnson, our Supreme Court applied a modified standard of review to those Wheeler/Batson cases in which the trial court may have applied the “more likely than not” standard disapproved by the high court in Johnson. Normally, as noted above, a trial court’s ruling on a Wheeler/Batson motion is reviewed for substantial evidence, with deference to the trial court’s factual assessments. (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 227-228 & fn. 13 [41 Cal.Rptr.3d 593, 131 P.3d 995]; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 116-117.) However, where the trial court may have applied the incorrect pre-Johnson standard, the Supreme Court stated that it would not defer to the trial court but instead “ ‘review[s] the record independently to “apply the high court’s standard and resolve the legal question whether the record supports an inference that the prosecutor excused a juror” on a prohibited discriminatory basis.’ ” (People v. Bonilla, supra, 41 Cal.4th 313, 342; accord, People v. Bell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 582, 597 [54 Cal.Rptr.3d 453, 151 P.3d 292]; People v. Williams (2006) 40 Cal.4th 287, 310 [52 Cal.Rptr.3d 268, 148 P.3d 47]; People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 553-554 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076]; Cornwell, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 73; People v. Gray, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 187.)

Defendant contends that we should review the trial court’s prima facie ruling under the less deferential standard, apparently under the assumption that the trial court may have applied the erroneous pre-Johnson standard in its prima facie analysis. But the trial court delivered its Wheeler/Batson ruling some 16 months after Johnson was decided. Absent some evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to presume that 16 months after Johnson the trial court knew and applied the appropriate law governing a Wheeler/Batson motion. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, 644 [97 Cal.Rptr.2d 528, 2 P.3d 1081] [“As an aspect of the presumption that judicial duty is properly performed, we presume . . . that the court knows and applies the correct statutory and case law”], overruled on other grounds in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 409, 25 P.3d 618]; accord, Ross v. Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913-914 [141 Cal.Rptr. 133, 569 P.2d 727] [rule that trial court is presumed to follow “ ‘established law encompasses a presumption that the trial court applied the proper burden of proof in matters tried to the court”]; People v. Mosley (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 489, 496 [62 Cal.Rptr.2d 268] [“The general rule is that a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law”].)

In any case, we need not resolve the issue of which standard applies to the trial court’s prima facie ruling, because, as explained below, even under an independent review of the record we would “resolve the legal question whether the record supports an inference that the prosecutor excused a juror on the basis of race” adversely to defendant. (Cornwell, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 73.)

(2)

We begin with the reasons set forth by defense counsel in support of his Wheeler/Batson motion. Defense counsel submitted his prima facie case to the trial court on the basis of the following: “The cognizable category would be black persons or African-American citizens, and then I will direct the court to the district attorney’s excuse of the [Jonet H.] female, Black; the [Betty C.] female, Black; and [¿banning W], a male Black, and it would seem that any of those three persons would be good jurors. And it appears to me that he’s established a pattern of deleting African-Americans from the jury.”

According to defense counsel, then, the “ ‘ “totality of the relevant facts giv[ing] rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” ’ ” (Cornwell, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 66) is that the three stricken jurors were all African-American. This alone is insufficient as a matter of law to show a prima facie case of discrimination by the prosecutor in his peremptory challenges, especially since the record reflects that there was an African-American on the jury panel ultimately sworn, and the prosecutor repeatedly passed that juror on his peremptory challenges. (Cornwell, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 70 [that “prosecutor challenged one out of two African-American prospective jurors does not support an inference of bias, particularly in view of the circumstance that the other African-American juror had been passed repeatedly by the prosecutor from the beginning of voir dire and ultimately served on the jury”]; accord, People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1188-1189 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130] [“[T]he only basis for establishing a prima facie case cited by defense counsel was that the [three] prospective jurors—like defendant—were Black. This is insufficient.”]; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 136-137 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988] [“[Defendant's only stated bases for establishing a prima facie case ...[,] that (1) four of the first five peremptory challenges exercised by the prosecution were for Black prospective jurors, and (2) a very small minority of jurors on the panel were Black[,] . . . fall short of a prima facie showing”].) Indeed, aside from race, defense counsel made no effort to discuss any other relevant circumstances, “ ‘such as the prospective jurors’ individual characteristics, the nature of the prosecutor’s voir dire, or the prospective jurors’ answers to questions.’ ” (People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 115 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166] [where defense counsel challenged prosecutor’s strike of three prospective jurors, “[djefense counsel’s cursory reference to prospective jurors by name, number, occupation and race was insufficient”].)

In addition to the paucity of defense counsel’s reasons for a prima facie case, our independent review of the challenged jurors’ voir dire also reveals no inference of discrimination on the part of the prosecutor. Prospective Juror Jonet H. lived for a time on the street where the shooting took place, and had a young cousin who was murdered in a shooting the previous year. She stated that her brother was charged with possession of crack cocaine in San Francisco, was sent to prison, got out, and is now back in prison for violation of parole after he was shot. She also expressed the opinion that there is an inherent bias in the criminal justice system against young African-American men, acknowledged that she has “biases,” stated that “I would be more impartial in a different kind of case,” and admitted it would be difficult for her to be impartial in “this kind of case.” Like Jonet H., Prospective Juror Betty C. had a close relative with a criminal history. Betty C. stated her son was in trouble about seven years ago when he was age 24 and living at home. He was stopped by police while driving a friend’s car and crack cocaine was found in the car. Her son was prosecuted and pled guilty to a drug offense. The revelations by these jurors of prior negative contact between a close relative and the criminal justice system provide “ ‘reasons other than racial bias for any prosecutor to challenge [them].’ ” (People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th 491, 554-555 [reasons other than racial bias for challenge included juror’s “experience with her brother’s involvement in the criminal justice system, notwithstanding [her] assurances that her prior experiences would not carry over to this case if she were chosen as a juror”]; see also Cornwell, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 70 [“[V]oir dire disclosed a large number of reasons other than racial bias for any prosecutor to challenge [prospective juror], including but not limited to her personal experience with an allegedly unfair homicide prosecution of a close relative and her express distrust of the criminal justice system and its treatment of African-American defendants”]; People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 138 [“close relative’s adversary contact with the criminal justice system” is one ground upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged prospective jurors].) Similarly, the voir dire of Prospective Juror Channing W. also disclosed “ ‘reasons other than racial bias for any prosecutor to challenge [him].’ ” (Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 554.) Channing W. stated that in his view drugs should be legalized, including crack cocaine, because “there’s a lot of profit” in the drug trade. He was ambivalent about whether he would be able to hold defendant accountable if the offense stemmed from drug dealing, stated it could possibly affect his participation as a juror if it transpired the shooting was over rock cocaine and drug turf, and was equivocal about the effect his views on the drug laws might have if he was called on as a juror to decide the case. In sum, our independent view of the record, including the discriminatory reasons proffered by defense counsel and the voir dire of the challenged jurors, reveals no inference of discriminatory purpose on the part of the prosecutor.

C. The Prosecutor’s Explanation of the Strikes

In addition or alternative to its prima facie ruling, the trial court also evaluated the explanation stated by the prosecutor for the challenged strikes. The trial court stated: “I accept [the prosecutor’s explanation] as accurate, as truthful. I do not see race as an issue. Assuming I didn’t make a prima facie ruling, I would then accept [the prosecutor’s explanations]. I would do so on the whole record. He has accurately stated and pinpointed at length just the areas that I think any prosecutor would have a problem with . . . any juror, regardless of race.” Defendant contends the trial court erred in accepting the prosecutor’s explanations as race neutral. Given the element of ambiguity in the trial court’s Wheeler/Batson ruling, which we noted above, we will assume arguendo that the trial court implicitly found a prima facie case but accepted the prosecutor’s reasons as race neutral. This leads us to the third step of the Batson analysis.

(D

At this stage, “[t]he proper focus ... is on the subjective genuineness of the race-neutral reasons given for the peremptory challenge, not on the objective reasonableness of those reasons.” (People v. Reynoso, supra, 31 Cal.4th 903, 924.) “The proper function on review [is] to determine whether the trial court’s conclusion—that the prosecutor’s subjective race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue . . . were sincere, and that the defendant!] failed to sustain [his] burden ... is supported by the record when considered under the applicable deferential standard of review.” (Ibid.) Our review of the record in this regard is a deferential one given that “ 1 “the trial judge’s findings in the context under consideration here largely will turn on evaluation of credibility (Id. at p. 918, citing Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 98, fn. 21; see also People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 74 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623, 990 P.2d 506] (Ervin) [“we review a trial court’s determination regarding the sufficiency of a prosecutor’s justifications for exercising peremptory challenges ‘with great restraint’ ”].) Moreover, “ ‘[t]he party seeking to justify a suspect excusal need only offer a genuine, reasonably specific, race- or group-neutral explanation related to the particular case being tried. [Citations.] The justification need not support a challenge for cause, and even a “trivial” reason, if genuine and neutral, will suffice.’ ” (Ervin, supra, 22 Cal.4th at pp. 74—75.) Indeed, “ ‘[j]urors may be excused based on “hunches” and even “arbitrary” exclusion is permissible, so long as the reasons are not based on impermissible group bias.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1122 [124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373, 52 P.3d 572], italics added; see also People v. Davenport (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1171, 1203 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 800, 906 P.2d 1068] [“peremptory challenges are properly made in response to ‘ “ ‘bare looks and gestures,’ ” ’ or the demeanor of a prospective juror”], abrogated on other grounds in People v. Griffin (2004) 33 Cal.4th 536, 555, fn. 5 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 743, 93 P.3d 344].)

(2)

JonetH.

Regarding his strike of Prospective Juror Jonet H., the prosecutor offered the following explanation: “She indicated that she was somewhat familiar with the area [of the crime], which expressed some concern for me, but it was really the rest of the answers that indicated to me that she was not a pro-prosecution juror, and, in fact, couldn’t even be declared a neutral and impartial juror. She had some very strong feelings about. . . the role society has played in making criminals victims, and she was very soft on illegal drugs. I’m familiar with the location where she worked at, so we talked extensively about the Americorps program. I was one of the foundation’s supervisors in that program back in the summer of 1998, and that program is . . . focused on primarily rehabilitation, and I felt that that juror’s answers orally and in the questionnaire embraced that rehabilitation aspect, that she would find it very difficult to arrive at a decision assessing guilt or innocence in a case like this, particularly because it involves narcotics. I felt she was soft on personal responsibility. She felt that individuals who often commit crimes, including violent crime, do so because they don’t have any other options in society, and I felt she would not be an appropriate individual in this case—particularly, Mr. Adanandus, rather see him in some light as a potential victim. Q] I think it will come out that Mr. Adanandus has at least an extensive background in criminal law with contacts with law enforcement given his commitment to the youth authority, and [Juror H.] currently works in several troubled schools in the City of Oakland, and I felt she would have unnecessary impartial [sic] compassion for Mr. Adanandus on that point.”

The prosecutor’s remarks reflect two concerns: first, Juror H.’s opinions on crime and society, and second, her occupation, both of which the prosecutor thought might make her sympathetic towards the accused. There is ample support for the prosecutor’s concerns in Juror H.’s voir dire. She stated that in her opinion the criminal justice system was inherently biased against young African-American men. It is a fair inference that it was this very opinion that prompted her to further state that she would find it difficult to be impartial in “this kind of case” involving the drug prosecution of a young African-American male, especially where her own brother had been prosecuted and jailed for drug possession. The prosecutor’s perception that Juror H. harbored a generally prodefense partiality or bias was alone a sufficient nonracial justification for his strike. (People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 138 [peremptory challenges upheld where prosecutor “articulated her belief that each of the four challenged jurors harbored a pro-defense bias”].) Also, Juror H. stated that she worked as a counselor with Americorps and in that capacity “worked out of different schools in Oakland.” The prosecutor’s specific concern that Juror H.’s employment as a counselor working in Oakland schools might make her more partial to the defense is another perfectly justifiable reason for the strike. (Ervin, supra, 22 Cal.4th at p. 75 [juror was a juvenile counselor with a belief in rehabilitation; properly excused in death penalty case]; People v. Barber (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 378, 389-394 [245 Cal.Rptr. 895] [juror excused because spouse worked for a liberal attorney was a valid use of a peremptory challenge; another juror properly excused because juror was a teacher; prosecutor believed teachers tend to be “ ‘liberal’ ” and “ ‘less prosecution oriented’ ”]; People v. Landry (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 785, 789-790 [56 Cal.Rptr.2d 824] [juror was a teacher and was on board of a drag treatment program; another juror had an education background in psychiatry or psychology, and worked in a youth services agency; both properly excused by prosecutor]; People v. Turner (1994) 8 Cal.4th 137, 168-172 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 762, 878 P.2d 521] [juror had trained with Department of Social Services], abrogated on other grounds in People v. Griffin, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 555, fn. 5.)

Betty C.

Regarding Prospective Juror Betty C., the prosecutor stated this explanation for his strike: “At first blush, I actually liked Ms. [C.] and rated her highly based on her responses to the written questionnaire; however, as her responses were flushed out orally in court, it was clear to me that she perhaps was being a little bit close to the vest and not disclosing as much information as she could have regarding her son’s involvement with law enforcement. [][] She indicated he had some contact as a juvenile, yet she did not participate in those, which I find difficult to believe, but even assuming that was the case, I felt she also would be impartial [szc] towards Mr. Adanandus, given that his juvenile history and certainly his commitment to the Youth Authority would be coming out. [f] I also felt that she was a little bit elusive about even describing her familiarity with the Youth Authority or with Juvenile Hall, and it was actually [defense counsel] that flushed that out, because I was not aware that Robert [C.] was director of Juvenile Hall here in Alameda County. And when she responded in that way to [defense counsel], I felt additionally that she was being less than forthright with me about her knowledge of the juvenile system. [