P. v. Burns
Filed 8/4/06 P. v. Burns CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMAL RASHAD BURNS, Defendant and Appellant. | G035954 (Super. Ct. No. 05ZF0093) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed.
R. Charles Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Introduction
Defendant Jamal Rashad Burns was convicted of possession of stolen property and attempted residential burglary; he was acquitted of two counts of residential burglary, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the counts of possession of a controlled substance and possession of controlled substance paraphernalia.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by failing sua sponte to provide a unanimity instruction, such as CALJIC No. 17.01, in connection with the count of possession of stolen property. The stolen property referenced in that count came from two different burglaries. Even if the trial court erred by failing to provide a unanimity instruction, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (The Attorney General argues any error was harmless, and does not argue no error occurred.) The facts of defendant's possession of all the stolen items were the same--they were all located in the trunk of his car. Defendant offered a single defense to the entirety of the charge--all of the items belonged to his friend and he did not know any of them were stolen. The jury's verdict implies it did not believe the only defense offered, so there was no harm in the lack of a unanimity instruction.
Defendant also argues he was prejudiced by the admission of character evidence, and by other evidence tending to cast him in a negative light. The trial court did not abuse its discretion as the evidence of defendant's uncharged but admitted possession of stolen property and other theft acts was admissible to impeach defendant. The inadmissible comments by a police officer about â€
