(Super. Ct. No. 07F08272)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro ,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Anthony James Gibbs challenges his convictions for robbery and resisting a peace officer. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his posttrial motion for access to personal juror identifying information. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 206, 237.) We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion, and affirm the judgment.
The Crimes and the Verdicts
Standing outside his girlfriend's house at night, the robbery victim saw a car drive slowly by and then circle back to where he was standing. A man (later identified by the victim as defendant) got out of the backseat of the car, ran toward the victim with a gun, and took the victim's MP3 player, wallet, car keys and cell phone. Defendant got back into the car and it drove away.
Minutes later, the car's driver failed to respond to an attempted traffic stop. Officers chased the three men who fled the car on foot; two (including defendant) ignored officers' commands to stop. They found defendant hiding under a light rail car.
The robbery victim's wallet and car keys were recovered from the car. In a field lineup conducted within an hour of the robbery, the victim identified defendant as the robber.
Defendant and his co-defendant Jerome McCoy were charged with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and with receiving a stolen vehicle (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)). Defendant was also charged with misdemeanor resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)); McCoy was charged with being an accessory to defendant's robbery.*fn2
At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence that defendant's fingerprints were on the toy gun recovered from the car in which he had been riding.
Defendant testified and denied participating in the robbery. According to defendant, he accepted a ride in the car from McCoy and two other people about 10 minutes before officers tried to make the traffic stop. McCoy told defendant he (McCoy) had "just robbed somebody," and defendant said he later ran from police because he was afraid: "I didn't have nothing to do with it, and I know if I stayed in the car somehow they would try to put me into having something to do with it." Defendant explained his fingerprints were on the toy gun because he had been playing with it earlier that day. On cross-examination, defendant admitted he had previously been convicted of lying to police for giving them a false name.
After deliberating less than a full day, the jury announced it had reached a verdict. The verdict forms showed that the jury found defendant guilty of robbery and resisting a peace officer, and not guilty of receiving stolen property. But when the jury was polled, Juror No. 2 asked to discuss the verdicts in private. After the other jurors were excused, Juror No. 2 said she had not believed there was enough evidence to find defendant guilty on the "first count" [robbery] but had changed her vote from not guilty to guilty on that count because she feared the other jurors might be angry with her. Juror No. 2 also said she had a "feeling" the otherwise all-White jury may have discriminated against the defendant, an African-American. She admitted listening to the ...