People v. Johnson CA5, F069414

On Sept. 19, 2012, an altercation at Camino Real (Bakersfield) led to two men being ejected; shortly after, shots were fired and Kyle McGuire was wounded in the forearm. Appellant Rickey Johnson was charged with attempted murder (count 1) and assault with a firearm (count 3) as to McGuire, and acquitted on parallel counts as to a second alleged victim.
Surveillance video from the restaurant showed a shooter in a striped polo; the restaurant owner produced scanner records showing Johnson entered that night. Johnson admitted to police he was at the club and in the bar fight but denied shooting and said he wore a white T‑shirt.
A security guard, Ryan Reneau, testified he saw a striped‑polo shooter firing and later identified Johnson in court as the shooter (after not identifying anyone from photo lineups the night of the incident).
The jury convicted Johnson of premeditated attempted murder and assault with a firearm, found gang enhancement and a prior serious felony, and the court imposed life with a minimum parole eligibility plus a 25‑year firearm enhancement.
On appeal Johnson argued (1) the restaurant scanner evidence was improperly admitted, (2) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the shooter, and (3) the court erred in answering jurors’ questions (failing to give CALJIC No. 8.73). The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of restaurant scanner printout	Scanner data authenticated by owner and matched to surveillance; admissible and weight for jury	Scanner timestamps were wrong; owner lacked technical foundation so printout was hearsay/unreliable	Court did not err — machine‑generated data need only foundation that device was operating; discrepancies go to weight; harmless if error
Sufficiency of evidence that Johnson was shooter	Surveillance video, owner testimony, in‑court ID by security guard, and Johnson’s admission he was present/support conviction	Video prepared by owner, face not clearly shown, in‑court ID unreliable (height/weight inconsistencies, only Black person at counsel table)	Evidence was substantial viewed in light most favorable to verdict; video and ID supported conviction
Response to jurors’ question about "other condition" precluding premeditation	Court’s reread of CALJIC No. 8.67 was adequate; court properly conferred with counsel and avoided advocating	Court should have given CALJIC No. 8.73 or examples of "other conditions" (e.g., provocation) because jury focused on deliberation/premeditation	No abuse of discretion — original instructions were full and complete; rereading was appropriate and not arbitrary

People v. DeHoyos, 57 Cal.4th 79 (authenticity and admissibility of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (computer‑generated records: admissibility focuses on operation, accuracy addressed on cross‑examination)
People v. Casares, 62 Cal.4th 808 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Livingston, 53 Cal.4th 1145 (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
People v. Barnes, 42 Cal.3d 284 (appellate limits on reweighing evidence)
People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (abuse of discretion standard for jury instruction decisions)
People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (trial court duty to assist jury and discretion in additional explanations)
People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68 (risks of elaborating instructions; court must consider how to aid jury)
People v. Montero, 155 Cal.App.4th 1170 (court must avoid appearing to endorse or redirect jury inclination)
People v. Hawkins, 98 Cal.App.4th 1428 (machine‑generated information is not hearsay)