People v. Mei CA1/5

Filed 1/24/14 P. v. Mei CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137404

v. GENG WONE MEI, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 05-100916-6) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Geng Wone Mei appeals from a judgment sentencing him to state prison for a three-year term after a jury convicted him of several offenses, including assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)1 He argues the evidence was insufficient to support an enhancement for great bodily injury attached to that count because the victim suffered only a momentary loss of consciousness. (§ 12022.7, subd. (a).) He also contends the prosecutor committed misconduct by equating unconsciousness with great bodily injury during closing argument. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Appellant was employed as a cook at a sushi restaurant and Jane Doe began working as his assistant. Appellant started touching Doe inappropriately during her first week at work. On one occasion, he placed his hands under her clothing and squeezed her

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

breasts under her bra. Doe reported this conduct to another female employee, but nothing was done. On October 30, 2009, Doe was napping in her car during a break. Appellant opened the door, which was unlocked, climbed on top of her, and pulled up her shirt, touching her breasts. He held her down and tried to take off her pants, but she resisted and scolded him and eventually he left the car. Doe remained in the car, crying, and then returned to work. Inside the restaurant, Doe confronted appellant about what he had done. He threatened to hit her if she didn’t stop arguing with him. When Doe continued to argue with appellant, he slapped her and she tore his shirt. Later during that same shift, while Doe was mopping the floor in the kitchen, appellant accused her of hitting him. He slapped her and struck her on the head with a pot or a wok, and she fell to the floor and lost consciousness. The owners of the restaurant arrived, but when Doe told them what had happened, they downplayed the problem and told her she would be terminated if she went to the police. The owners later presented her with a letter to sign, which Doe refused to do. On November 5, 2009, Doe was seen by Dr. Kim for a routine health appointment. Kim noticed bruises on Doe’s body and asked her what had happened. Doe did not answer initially, but after some probing, tearfully explained she had been attacked by a male coworker while she was napping in her car. She said she was bothered by scratches on her neck and a bruise on her arm, and had been suffering from headaches on the right side of her head. Doe reported tremendous anxiety and insomnia as a result of the incident, and said she was so overwhelmed she was not able to focus. She was prescribed medication for her headaches, which lasted a long time. Kim, a mandated reporter, contacted the police, and Doe reluctantly gave a statement about what had happened. Charges were filed against appellant and, following a jury trial, he was convicted of false imprisonment by force or violence (§§ 236, 237, subd. (a)), assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury with a great bodily injury enhancement (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)), two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery by restraint,