32 Cal.App.5th 860
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In Jan 2013 a confrontation at Bayfair BART between two teen groups escalated; shots were fired and bystander Kenneth Seets was killed. A Sig Sauer .22 used in the BART shooting matched casings from a separate Jan 17 shooting of Donell Jordan.
- Defendants: Jabrie Bennett (charged with Seets’s murder, attempted murder of Jordan, assault) and Andre Smith (charged with Seets’s murder and possession of a firearm by a felon).
- At trial Bennett was convicted of second‑degree murder (Seets), attempted premeditated murder (Jordan), and related enhancements; Smith was acquitted of murder but convicted of unlawful firearm possession.
- Key defenses: Bennett asserted complete or imperfect self‑defense (and transferred intent because the killed victim was an innocent bystander); prosecution also advanced a provocative‑act theory against Smith.
- On appeal appellants raised Batson/Wheeler challenges to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of Black venirepersons, several instructional and evidentiary claims (including exclusion of a witness’s prior statements and an asserted defect in transferred intent instruction), and Bennett sought remand for resentencing under later amendments to Penal Code §12022.53.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson/Wheeler challenge to peremptory strikes of Black jurors | Prosecutor provided race‑neutral reasons for strikes (juror views of criminal justice, hearing issues, relative incarcerated) and kept other Black jurors, supporting credibility | Defendants argued reasons were pretextual and pointed to similarly situated non‑Black jurors who were not struck | Court upheld trial court’s credibility findings and denied Batson/Wheeler relief; no abuse of discretion |
| Transferred intent and imperfect self‑defense instruction | Transferred intent instruction given but defendants argued court failed to make explicit that transfer applies to imperfect (unreasonable) self‑defense | Bennett argued omission could mislead jury to think transferred intent didn’t apply to imperfect self‑defense | Court found instructions, repeated manslaughter/imperfect self‑defense instructions, and counsel’s arguments made availability of transferred intent to imperfect self‑defense clear; no reversal |
| Exclusion of Purry’s prior statements (proffered as declarations against interest) | Bennett: exclusion violated his right to present a defense; statements would corroborate that Smith displayed a gun earlier | Prosecutor/Trial court: admission would violate Smith’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights (Purry refused to testify/cross‑examine) | Court found exclusion, even if error, harmless: Smith’s admissions and video evidence already established the same facts; no prejudice to Bennett |
| Admission of Facebook photo captions | Bennett argued captions were hearsay not shown to be his adoption | Prosecution: captions corroborate image and jurors could infer adoption; trial court discretion applies | Even if captions should have been redacted, any error was harmless given Bennett’s own testimony, photos, and other corroborating evidence |
| Resentencing under amended §12022.53 | People: amended §12022.53(h) permits striking enhancements and applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments; trial court’s sentencing remarks do not foreclose exercise of discretion on remand | Bennett sought remand to allow trial court to consider striking or dismissing firearm enhancements | Court remanded Bennett’s sentence for reconsideration under the amended statute (discretionary strike/dismiss) |
| Smith’s new‑trial claims (corpus delicti, juror affidavits, prosecutor remarks) | Smith argued insufficient independent proof of gun possession (corpus delicti), juror statements show jury ignored instruction, and prosecutor misstated law | People pointed to other witness testimony, video, and court instructions; juror affidavits inadmissible hearsay; court instructions cured any prosecutor misstatements | Trial court’s denial of new trial affirmed: corpus delicti satisfied by independent evidence; post‑verdict juror statements inadmissible under Evid. Code §1150; no reasonable likelihood jury relied on prosecutor’s remark over court instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate equal protection)
- Wheeler v. California, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1978) (California framework for discriminatory peremptory strikes)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (U.S. 2003) (focus on credibility of prosecutor’s race‑neutral reasons at Batson step three)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (Cal. 2016) (discusses testimonial statements and confrontation clause principles)
- People v. Levitt, 156 Cal.App.3d 500 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (transferred intent and self‑defense leading to no liability when an innocent bystander is killed)