P. v. Jackson
Filed 6/15/06 P. v. Jackson CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN FRANK JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant. | C048079
(Super. Ct. No. 03F00120)
|
A jury convicted defendant Steven Frank Jackson of first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459; undesignated section references are to this code; count 16), sexual battery (§ 243.4, subd. (a); count 15), forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2); count 14), three counts of forcible sexual penetration (§ 289, subd. (a)(1); counts 11, 12, 13) and 10 counts of forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2); counts 1-10). In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court found two prior convictions to be true for purposes of sections 667, subdivisions (a), (b)-(i) and 1170.12.
Sentenced to state prison, defendant appeals, contending (1) the trial court erroneously denied his Wheeler-Batson[1] motion and (2) the trial court erroneously admitted evidence under Evidence Code section 1108 and erroneously instructed thereon. We will affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Defendant's contentions require no detailed recitation of the facts. Defendant committed numerous sex offenses upon the 72-year-old victim after breaking into her apartment in the early morning hours. DNA evidence from saliva on the victim's breast established defendant's identity as the perpetrator. Defendant lived in the same apartment complex as the victim. Additional facts relevant to defendant's contentions will be recounted in our discussion of the same.
DISCUSSION
I
During jury selection, defense counsel claimed the prosecutor had exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially biased manner in eliminating two African-Americans from the jury panel. Defendant specifically cited the prosecutor's peremptory challenges of prospective juror S., a male, and prospective juror J., a female. Both are African-American as is defendant. The trial court had the prosecutor explain his reasons and thereafter rejected defendant's claim. Defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erroneously denied his Wheeler-Batson motion. We disagree.
â€
