 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Bourgeois4/15/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury found appellant Michael Lamont Bourgeois guilty of two counts of second degree burglary. The same jury found appellant Robert Amosis Morgan guilty of one count of second degree burglary and he pled guilty to a second count. (See Pen. Code, § 459.) Bourgeois received a term of three years eight months in state prison; Morgan was sentenced to three years. In this consolidated appeal, Bourgeois and Morgan each contend that the trial court erred by denying their Wheeler/Batson motions. We affirm the judgments.
I. FACTS
On March 12, 2001, two Petaluma jewelry stores were burglarized by four men. Vehicles containing appellants Michael Lamont Bourgeois and Robert Amosis Morgan were both stopped by police near the stores. Morgan was arrested at that time; Bourgeois fled from police only to be apprehended later in Southern California.
In May 2001, Bourgeois was charged by information with two counts of commercial burglary. (See § 459.) The information also alleged that he had been committed to state prison for two burglaries committed in 1992 and 1993. (See § 667.5, subd. (b).) Bourgeois pled not guilty and denied the prior conviction allegations. In July 2001, Morgan was charged by information with the same two offenses. (See § 459.) He also entered a not guilty plea. In September 2001, the two cases were ordered consolidated for trial. In October 2001, a consolidated information was filed and the case was tried to a jury.
During jury selection, Bourgeois challenged the prosecutor's exercise of her peremptory challenges. He argued that three men of color had been questioned as prospective jurors-Jurors Nos. 222, 787 and 968-and two of them-Jurors Nos. 222 and 968-had been excused by the People. Bourgeois asked that the prosecutor be required to state her reasons for excluding these two men. He sought to preclude the prosecution from removing Juror No. 968. Morgan joined in the motion.
The trial court did not rule on whether Bourgeois and Morgan made a prima facie showing of discrimination. Instead, the prosecutor launched into an explanation of her use of peremptory challenges. As to Juror No. 222, the prosecutor stated that she did not hear anything objectionable when she questioned him. She challenged him because he had been leaning over with his arms folded, rocking back and forth in his seat, "looking at and almost smiling . . . almost as if he was laughing at" her. This gave the prosecutor a "very uncomfortable" feeling about him. Bourgeois argued that Juror No. 222 was an African-American man who gave unremarkable answers to questions and appeared to her to be a pleasant person. He did not seem to be laughing at anyone as far as Bourgeois's counsel could tell. Morgan joined in this argument.
As to Juror No. 968, the prosecutor did not believe that he was an African-American-he appeared to her to be Indian. He made her uneasy because of his occupation and his courtroom demeanor. He worked in the drug treatment field. Juror No. 968 appeared to the prosecutor to be "fidgety" and would not make eye contact with her. He appeared to be "very nervous and unsure of himself." She did not have a good sense about him, but denied that her uncertainty had anything to do with "the color of his skin." He did not look comfortable with himself and the prosecutor did not feel comfortable with
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|