People v. McGee
Decision Date | 18 December 2002 |
Docket Number | No. B152420.,B152420. |
Citation | 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 309,104 Cal.App.4th 559 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brian M. McGEE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Mary Sanchez and Myung J. Park, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brian M. McGee appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for one count of murder and one count of attempted murder, arguing the trial court erred in considering his several motions under People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Wheeler) and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69] (Batson), which alleged the prosecutor was improperly discriminating in the exercise of peremptory challenges. McGee also contests several of the trial court's evidentiary rulings.
We reject McGee's evidentiary claims. However, we conclude the trial court failed to follow required procedures for determining whether the prosecutor had improperly excused African-American prospective jurors on the basis of group bias and remand for a new Wheeler hearing.
McGee (sometimes known as Geeter) lived in an apartment in the Nickerson Gardens housing project in Los Angeles with Linda Williams and Jonathan Bowen. Williams was dating Lee Anthony Lewis, who lived nearby with his mother.
On the evening of December 3, 1998, Lewis went to the apartment to see Williams. McGee answered the door, told Lewis to go away and closed the door. Lewis did not leave and instead tried to get Williams's attention by shouting at her window. McGee and two friends, Charlie Mack and Larry Hamilton, then came out of the apartment and attacked Lewis for "disrespecting" them. During the assault, Mack hit Lewis in the mouth with a handgun. McGee threatened Lewis not go to the police "or he would kill him."
Williams heard the commotion and went outside to see Lewis. McGee and Mack forced her back into, the apartment. Mack pointed the gun at her and said "`If you or your boyfriend go and tell the police, or call the police, we're going to kill you.'" McGee repeated the threat to Williams, who ran out of the apartment in search of Lewis.
Williams found Lewis down the street talking to the police. After Lewis reported the incident, the police escorted Lewis and Williams back to the apartment, where Lewis identified Mack and Hamilton as two of the attackers. Mack and Hamilton were placed under arrest.
The police then accompanied Williams and Lewis to Lewis's house. Williams noticed McGee's uncle, George Adams, watching from a nearby corner. After the police departed, Adams knocked on the door. When Lewis answered, Adams said, "`Lee Anthony, man, you should have just left it alone'" and "`should have taken it like a man.'"
Seconds after Adams left, McGee burst into the Lewis residence and began shooting. After the shooting stopped, Williams told Lewis's mother, "`Geeter shot us, Geeter shot us.'" When the police arrived, both Williams and Lewis told the officers they had been shot by McGee.
Lewis died of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest and buttocks. Although she had been shot seven times, Williams survived and testified at trial.
McGee was charged with one count of murder (Pen.Code, § 187), one count of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187) and one count of making terrorist threats (Pen.Code, § 422). The information specially alleged Lewis had been intentionally killed because he was a witness to a crime (Pen.Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(10)). It also alleged that McGee personally used and discharged a handgun (Pen.Code, §§ 12022.5, subd (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c)), which caused great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The information further alleged McGee had personally inflicted great bodily injury on Williams in the commission of the attempted murder alleged in count 2 (Pen.Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a)). Finally, the information alleged all crimes were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen.Code § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
The case was tried to a jury. During jury selection McGee's counsel made a series of four motions under Wheeler and Batson, each of which was denied.
The trial court denied McGee's initial motion, finding he had failed to establish a prima facie case of improper discrimination:
The trial court denied the motion, stating, "I don't believe you've made a prima facie case."
Jury selection continued, and the prosecutor excused juror number three. McGee's counsel again challenged the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges:
The prosecutor then explained that during his six years as a prosecutor, he has "had problems with teachers and mail carriers" resulting in hung juries, and juror number three was a postal worker. He also stated that "I believe that there was some sort of reluctance or holding back on her part in terms of opening up and asking [sic] the questions that I think that are important in a case of this magnitude to be answered."
The trial court responded:
McGee's third motion was made after the prosecutor exercised two more peremptory challenges against African-American jurors. At that point, the prosecutor had exercised eight out of nine peremptory challenges against African-Americans. McGee's counsel argued, "I believe that not only established a pattern but shows that the People are using their peremptory challenges in a discriminatory way." The trial court denied the motion, finding McGee had failed to make a prima facie showing the prosecutor had used the peremptory challenges because of race or other group bias.
During the selection of alternate jurors, the prosecutor struck two additional African-American jurors without asking them any individual voir dire questions. McGee's counsel renewed his Wheeler motion, arguing, "All but two of the strikes by the People have been for African-Americans and in the—the last juror I think establishes, again, a pattern that the peremptories are being utilized in a discriminatory fashion." The court once again found no prima facie showing, but nonetheless invited comment from the prosecutor. The prosecutor explained the last juror had been excused because she had several close relatives in prison. The court said "okay" and proceeded to complete jury selection.
The jury ultimately selected and sworn convicted McGee of murder and attempted murder, acquitted him of making terrorist threats and found true all the special allegations. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole plus a consecutive sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McGEE v. KIRKLAND
...79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and challenging evidentiary rulings. (Answer Ex. D.) On December 18, 2002, 104 Cal.App.4th 559, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 (2002), the court of appeal reversed Petitioner's conviction because the trial court failed to inquire into the reasons for the prose......
-
People v. Armstrong
...solicit and consider the prosecution’s reasons for every other challenge against a member of the same group. ( People v. McGee (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 559, 570, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, disapproved by People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 549–550, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076.) Trial courts ......
-
People v. Avila
...of the group in question, including those the court had ruled upon earlier? One Court of Appeal decision, People v. McGee (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 559, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 309 (McGee), addressed this question and answered in the affirmative. As we will explain, we disagree with the Court of Appea......
-
People v. Robinson
...error, but, because the trial court followed the limited Wheeler procedure which this court found to be error in People v. McGee (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 559, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, the case must be remanded for a limited Wheeler A. Factual Background During voir dire, Juror No. 46 was asked if......
-
Table of cases
...Rptr. 2d 884, §11:10 McGee v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 179, 188 Cal. Rptr. 542, §9:120 McGee, People v. (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 559, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 309, §2:190 McGehee, People v. (2016) 246 Cal. App. 4th 1190, 201 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714, §9:30 McGraw, People v. (1983) 141 ......
-
Jury selection
...the party exercising the peremptory challenges to provide neutral explanations for every questioned challenge. People v. McGee (2002) 104 Cal. App. 4th 559, 570, 128 Cal. Rptr. 2d 309. Court Determination. The trial judge must make a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the nondiscrimina......
-
Table of cases
...McGee (2006) 38 Cal.4th 682, 704, §§9:103.1, 9:103.7, 10:31.4 People v. McGee (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 796, §7:64 People v. McGhee (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 559, §9:05 People v. McGinnis (1953) 123 Cal.App.2d 945, §§9:38.7, 9:50.8 People v. McGreen (1980) 107 Cal.App. 3d 504, §9:28.1 People v. Mc......