PEOPLE v. HILL Part-IV
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html > <head> <title>PEOPLE v</title> </head> <body> <div> <br/><b >PEOPLE v. HILL</b> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/>Filed 1/13/11 <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION</b><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup>*</sup></a> <br/> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA <br/> <br/>FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT <br/> <br/>DIVISION FIVE <br/> <br/> <br/> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 > <tr > <td width=319 valign=top > <br/><b >THE PEOPLE,</b> <br/><b > Plaintiff and Respondent,</b> <br/><b > v.</b> <br/><b >DAVID LEE HILL,</b> <br/><b > Defendant and Appellant.</b> </td> <td width=319 valign=top > <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > A117787</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > (</b><b >San Francisco</b><b > </b><b >City</b><b > and County</b> <br/><b > Super. Ct. No. 196842)</b> </td> </tr> </table> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/> <br/><b >Story Continued From Part III………….</b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/><b > </b> <br/>Appellant contends that because Telfor did not testify on direct examination as to 1700 Block or its members, this rebuttal evidence was improperly admitted. Because appellant provides no reasoned argument supported by pertinent authorities for the contention that the prosecution may not rebut evidence provided by a defense witness on cross-examination, we treat that argument as waived. (<i >People v. </i><i >Dixon</i><i > </i>(2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 985, 996.) Appellant further contends that neither Telfor's tattoo and supposed gang affiliation based on that tattoo nor his knowledge of the ethnic makeup of 1700 Block was relevant to his direct examination testimony that he saw appellant buying drugs on Newhall and Newcomb on the night of April 10, 2004. The People rejoin that the rebuttal evidence regarding Telfor's gang membership was properly admitted to undermine his credibility and thereby impeach his testimony on direct examination that appellant was at Newcomb and Newhall to purchase marijuana rather than to carry out a shooting of a rival gang member. We agree and conclude no abuse of discretion is demonstrated. <br/>VI. <i >The Court Did Not Err in Refusing to Conduct an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Alleged Jury Misconduct</i><a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup>*</sup></a> <br/> Appellant contends the court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing into alleged misconduct by several jurors who talked about another juror outside of deliberations. <br/> On December 13, 2006, the jury began its deliberations. On December 19, the fourth day of deliberations, after the jurors had posed numerous questions to the court and made various requests for the readback of testimony, Juror No. (hereafter, JN) 9<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> asked to speak to the court regarding another juror's misconduct during the trial. At an in camera hearing, JN 9 said that on multiple occasions during the trial she observed JN 8,<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> whom she sat next to, â€