Ngo v. Giurbino
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14166
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ngo was convicted in California court of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and six counts of attempted murder from two gang-related car chases in one night.
- The first set of attempted murders involved five occupants of a Toyota Tercel; Ngo argues there is insufficient evidence he had specific intent to kill the backseat passengers.
- Later the same night, a second gunfight with a Nissan Maxima resulted in a murder and an additional attempted murder conviction.
- During voir dire, the prosecutor struck five African American jurors peremptorily; defense alleged racial motivation under Wheeler/Batson frameworks.
- The district court denied Ngo’s federal habeas petition; the Ninth Circuit reviews de novo under AEDPA standards and affirms the denial.
- The court concludes there was sufficient evidence for the backseat offenses under conflicting-inference deference and upholds the Batson-related ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for backseat counts | Ngo contends no rational juror could find specific intent to kill backseat victims. | State argues circumstantial evidence supports intent given visibility and firepower during the chase. | Evidence sufficient; convictions sustained. |
| Prosecutorial peremptory challenges and race | Ngo argues striking five African American jurors showed purposeful discrimination. | State contends race-neutral, non-pretextual explanations supported by voir dire. | Batson step three not unreasonable; challenges upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 37 Cal.4th 733 (Cal. 2005) (specific intent required for attempted murder under California law)
- People v. Bland, 28 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2002) (kill zone framework for aiding and abetting and attempted murder cases)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review standard for federal habeas corpus)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on racial discrimination in peremptory jury strikes)
- Wheeler v. U.S. (People v. Wheeler), 22 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1978) (three-step framework for Batson-type challenges in California)
- McClain v. Prunty, 217 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2000) (overbroad consideration of race-neutral explanations in voir dire)
- People v. Lee, 31 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2003) (aider-and-abettor must know extent of principal's criminal purpose)
- Juan H. v. Allen, 408 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2005) (AEDPA deference and Jackson standard in habeas review)
- Felkner v. Jackson, 131 S. Ct. 1305 (S. Ct. 2011) (deference to state court factual findings in habeas petitions)
- Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2010) (voir dire and comparative juror analysis in Batson challenges)