Barber

People v. Barber

Good Law
102 Cal. App. 4th 145·124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 917·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4687·2002 Daily Journal DAR 10884·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9712
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2002B146793California2,886 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The jury is hopelessly deadlocked in a criminal trial. Here we conclude the trial court erred by asking questions of the jurors that revealed the identity of the lone holdout juror, by allowing the prosecution to examine the holdout juror, and by allowing testimony from only those jurors who claimed the holdout juror was not deliberating in good faith.

Roderick Terrell Barber appeals a judgment after conviction of first degree murder with findings that he personally used and intentionally discharged a handgun. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53, subds. (b) & (d).) We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Facts

Voir Dire

During voir dire, the court asked the jurors whether any of them had been criminally charged or arrested. Juror No. 5 did not mention an incident years earlier in Texas when he was fingerprinted and falsely identified as a crime suspect.

Trial

Raynada L. testified that she and Barber entered an apartment and, when inside, Barber pointed a gun at Darrien Mays. Barber told Mays to “Shut up” and asked him, “Do you wanna die tonight?” He then shot Mays at least four times. Ronna Criss, Mays’s girlfriend, also saw Barber shoot Mays. Mays…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.