People v. Boston CA3
C086940
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 29, 2021Background
- Stevie Lee Boston (age 20 at offenses) lived with victims N.D.M. and A.R.B.; over ~3 months he repeatedly assaulted, controlled, and forced sexual acts, and organized schemes to take money from customers of prostitution ads.
- A jury convicted Boston of multiple crimes: five counts forcible oral copulation, three counts corporal injury to a cohabitant, two counts kidnapping, two counts robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury.
- The court found true prior serious juvenile adjudication and gang/street-terrorism-related enhancements, exposing Boston to one‑strike and three‑strikes penalties.
- Trial court sentenced to aggregate determinate 50 years plus aggregate indeterminate 164 years‑to‑life.
- On appeal Boston raised multiple claims (Batson/Wheeler challenge to peremptory strike, courtroom closure for priors trial, robbery/larceny theory, sufficiency regarding belt as deadly weapon, prosecutorial misconduct re: Fifth Amendment, equal protection re: youth parole carve‑out, cruel/unusual punishment, remand for SB 1393 discretion on juvenile priors, and striking prior‑prison enhancements under amended §667.5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Batson/Wheeler peremptory strike of prospective juror (Dunn) | Prosecution: strike based on juror demeanor, expressed sympathy for certain defendants, discomfort judging peers and comments about racial prejudice in county — race‑neutral reasons. | Boston: prosecutor’s reasons were pretextual; court applied wrong standard and failed to assess subjective genuineness. | Affirmed — court’s review of demeanor and juror statements sufficed; trial court implicitly found reasons genuinely nondiscriminatory and deference applies. |
| 2. Closure of courtroom for bench trial on prior‑conviction allegations | State: post‑verdict disturbance created substantial security risk; closure narrowly tailored and alternatives considered. | Boston: closure violated public‑trial right; exclusion (including his mother) unnecessary; less restrictive measures available. | Affirmed — Waller factors satisfied: overriding interest (security), narrow tailoring, alternatives considered, adequate findings. |
| 3. Robbery convictions (counts 16,17) | State: takings accompanied or followed by force/fear support robbery convictions. | Boston: takings were by false pretenses (consensual transfer), not larceny; robbery requires larceny. | Reversed convictions — applying People v. Williams, transfers were consensual (false pretenses), so larceny element lacking; not robbery. |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence re: belt as deadly weapon (count 1) and force likely to cause GBH (count 3) | State: belt was thick leather and used to whip victim repeatedly, causing extensive bruising; other assault inflicted chest injury. | Boston: no evidence belt used in manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury; convictions insufficient. | Affirmed for count 1 — jurors could infer belt use likely to cause substantial injury; count 3 upheld on separate conduct (not belt). |
| 5. Prosecutorial misconduct for questioning witness about invoking Fifth Amendment | State: questions about immunity and whether privilege was considered were proper; court sustained privilege objections when necessary. | Boston: asking whether witness considered invoking privilege improperly invited adverse inference; failure to object preserved ineffective assistance claim. | Forfeited on appeal for lack of specific misconduct objection; no ineffective‑assistance prejudice shown — witness did not invoke privilege and court sustained objections. |
| 6. Equal protection challenge to §3051(h) carve‑out (youth offender parole) | State: forcible sex offenders and murderers are not similarly situated; Legislature had rational basis to exclude one‑strike/three‑strike offenders. | Boston: forcible sex offenders sentenced to indeterminate life denied youth‑parole eligibility while first‑degree murderers may be eligible — unequal treatment. | Rejected — differences between crimes and legitimate legislative objectives provide rational basis; not similarly situated and, even if so, classification is rational. |
| 7. Eighth Amendment / cruel and unusual punishment challenge to aggregate long sentence | State: sentencing within statutory scheme; Legislature intended severe penalties for these offenses. | Boston: aggregate term (50 years + 164‑to‑life) is grossly disproportionate and shocking. | Rejected — sentence not grossly disproportionate under governing standards and legislative judgment respected. |
| 8. Remand for discretionary resentencing under SB 1393 (striking juvenile serious priors) | State agrees remand appropriate so trial court can exercise new discretion. | Boston: requests trial court reconsider striking or dismissing prior juvenile serious adjudication under amended §667(a)(1). | Remand ordered — trial court to exercise discretion under SB 1393. |
| 9. Strike one‑year prior‑prison enhancements under amended §667.5(b) | State concedes amendments are retroactive and enhancements not authorized. | Boston: urges striking the prior‑prison one‑year terms. | Modified — five one‑year prior‑prison enhancements stricken. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on race‑based peremptory challenges and three‑step framework)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1978) (California analog to Batson principles)
- People v. Miles, 9 Cal.5th 513 (Cal. 2020) (deference to trial court credibility findings in Batson/Wheeler review)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013) (theft by false pretenses vs. larceny—robbery requires larceny)
- People v. Aguilar, 16 Cal.4th 1023 (Cal. 1997) (definition and analysis of deadly weapon for §245)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (public‑trial right and criteria for closure)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (closure of courtroom during voir dire requires consideration of alternatives)
- People v. Hardy, 5 Cal.5th 56 (Cal. 2018) (Batson standard emphasizing subjective genuineness of reasons)
- People v. Edwards, 34 Cal.App.5th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (discussed equal‑protection challenge to §3051 carve‑out; court of appeal decision referenced)