PEOPLE v. HILL
Filed 1/13/11
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID LEE HILL, Defendant and Appellant. | A117787 (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. 196842) |
Story Continued From Part III………….
Appellant contends that because Telfor did not testify on direct examination as to 1700 Block or its members, this rebuttal evidence was improperly admitted. Because appellant provides no reasoned argument supported by pertinent authorities for the contention that the prosecution may not rebut evidence provided by a defense witness on cross-examination, we treat that argument as waived. (People v. Dixon (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 985, 996.) Appellant further contends that neither Telfor's tattoo and supposed gang affiliation based on that tattoo nor his knowledge of the ethnic makeup of 1700 Block was relevant to his direct examination testimony that he saw appellant buying drugs on Newhall and Newcomb on the night of April 10, 2004. The People rejoin that the rebuttal evidence regarding Telfor's gang membership was properly admitted to undermine his credibility and thereby impeach his testimony on direct examination that appellant was at Newcomb and Newhall to purchase marijuana rather than to carry out a shooting of a rival gang member. We agree and conclude no abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
VI. The Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Alleged Jury Misconduct*
Appellant contends the court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing into alleged misconduct by several jurors who talked about another juror outside of deliberations.
On December 13, 2006, the jury began its deliberations. On December 19, the fourth day of deliberations, after the jurors had posed numerous questions to the court and made various requests for the readback of testimony, Juror No. (hereafter, JN) 9[1] asked to speak to the court regarding another juror's misconduct during the trial. At an in camera hearing, JN 9 said that on multiple occasions during the trial she observed JN 8,[2] whom she sat next to, â€
| Description | While patrolling San Francisco's Bayview District in an undercover capacity, Police Officer Isaac Espinoza was shot and killed and his partner, Officer Barry Parker, was wounded by David Lee Hill (appellant). Appellant's trial focused primarily on his motivation for shooting the officers. The jury rejected the defense theory that appellant did not realize the victims were police officers and shot them in self-defense. Appellant was convicted of second degree murder with a peace officer special circumstance and firearm enhancements (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 190, subd. (c), 12022.53, subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (b))[1] (count 1), attempted first degree murder (§§ 664, 187) (count 2), assault on a peace officer with personal use of an assault weapon (§§ 245, subd. (d)(3), 12022.5, subd. (b)) (count 3), and possession of an assault weapon with a gang allegation (§§ 12280, subd. (b), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) (count 4).[2] He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole on count 1, plus a consecutive term of life with the possibility of parole on count 2. The court stayed the weapon enhancements on count 1, and imposed a 15-year sentence on count 3 and a two-year sentence on count 5. The court imposed a consecutive two-year term plus a three-year enhancement on count 4, to be served first. (§ 669) |
| Rating |
