P. v. Juarez
A jury found defendants guilty as charged of transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, 11379, subd. (a); count 1), possession of methamphetamine for sale ( 11378; count 2), possession of cocaine ( 11350, subd. (a); count 3), and transportation of cocaine ( 11352, subd. (a); count 4). Juarez admitted he had two prior narcotics-related convictions within the meaning of section 11370.2. Juarez was sentenced to 10 years in prison.[2] Radilla was granted probation and given credit for time served. Defendants appeal, and join each others contentions.
First, defendants contend the trial court erroneously denied their Batson/Wheeler[3]motions alleging the prosecutor improperly excluded six Hispanics from the jury on the basis of race or ethnicity. We conclude that the trial court fully and properly considered the prosecutors stated reasons for excluding the six Hispanic jurors; that substantial evidence supports the courts conclusion that the prosecutors stated reasons were race-neutral and genuine; and that defendants have failed to demonstrate group bias based on a comparative analysis of the prosecutors stated reasons for excusing the six Hispanic jurors with similar characteristics of unexcused jurors. Second, Radilla contends the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence at trial statements he made at the police station after waiving his Miranda[4] rights. We reject this contention, because the totality of the circumstances show the statements were voluntary and therefore admissible.
Finally, Radilla claims the court violated his privacy rights under the federal and state Constitutions by ordering him to submit to DNA testing. (Pen. Code, 296.) Court reject this claim, as have numerous other courts. Accordingly, Court affirm the judgments.
Comments on P. v. Juarez