People v. Thurman CA3

Filed 12/15/20 P. v. Thurman CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090905

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE016541)

v.

TIMAURI THURMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Timauri Thurman guilty of assault with a firearm, personal use of a firearm, and discharge of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of eight years and eight months. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial after a witness briefly testified regarding her experience investigating gangs in violation of the parties’ pretrial motions to exclude evidence or testimony regarding gang affiliation, including evidence and testimony the crime was gang related. Defendant asserts the trial court’s admonition and curative instructions to the jury to disregard the testimony were ineffective, as evidenced by a note from the jury to the trial

1

court during deliberations expressing concern about retaliation if the jury found defendant guilty. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and thus affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I The Crime And The Victims’ Testimony On June 24, 2017, defendant shot at a moving vehicle, injuring A. V., one of the passengers in a car driven by L. V., when a bullet grazed her thigh. L. V. and A. V. (collectively the victims) had a tumultuous relationship with defendant; the victims and defendant had previously engaged in several arguments and defendant had taken retaliatory actions against the victims on multiple occasions. In one instance, defendant threatened the victims’ lives. L. V. testified that, on the day of the shooting, she saw defendant staring at her in a check cashing store. When defendant left, L. V. decided to leave as well because she was concerned about the safety of A. V., who was waiting in the car outside. L. V. got in the car with A. V. and drove away, fearing they might get shot. Another vehicle, with defendant seated in the front passenger seat, followed them. A chase ensued. L. V.’s car unexpectedly malfunctioned and began to slow to a stop. A. V. saw defendant pull out a gun; multiple gunshots were fired. When L. V. realized A. V. had been injured, she called 911. L. V. originally told the 911 operator she knew exactly who the assailants were and identified defendant as one of them, but L. V. later retracted this statement during the call and told the operator “[s]ome car just shot at us.” L. V. subsequently spoke with a police officer on the scene and again said she did not know who shot at the car. However, while still on the scene, L. V. eventually conceded she knew who shot at them and identified defendant as the perpetrator. Approximately two weeks later, L. V. spoke with Sacramento Police Department Detective Krista Koppinger, and told Detective Koppinger she was afraid of retaliation, but it was more important someone be punished