Filed 4/30/15 P. v. Grey CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. ANTUON EUGENE GREY, Defendant and Appellant. D065038

(Super. Ct. No. SCD240243)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Eric R. Larson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood and Meagan J. Beale, Depu ty Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found Antuon Eugene Grey guilty of murdering Edwin Jackson, attempting to murder Dave Lockett and a ssaulting Lockett with a firearm. It also found true a2 number of firearm, gang, and great bodily in jury allegations. The court subsequently found Grey had a valid strike and prison prior. Grey receiv ed a total prison term of 19 years, plus 100 years to life. Although co defendant Deandre Grey, Grey's brother, was tried on the above charges, the prosecution elec ted to dismiss all of the charges against him due to insuffi cient evidence. Grey appeals, contending the trial court pr ejudicially erred (1) by removing a juror during the trial and (2) in refusing his request to instruct the jury to view eyewitness testimony with caution. We reject his contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND On January 20, 2012, Hopet on Bennett, a member of the Parkside/S kyline gang known as "Baby Dos," was shot and killed, and Parkside/S kyline gang me mber Julian Velasquez was shot. Grey was also a member of the Parkside/Skyline gang and was known as "Little Dos." The naming arrangement between Gr ey and Bennett indicated that Grey was something of a mentor to Bennett. The following day, Lockett was visiting some family members at an apartment complex on Solola Avenue in San Diego. Whil e in the parking lot, Lockett ran into an acquaintance, Jackson, who lived at the complex. Ja ckson was a member of the Lincoln Park gang, the chief rival of Parkside/Skyline ga ng. The Linc oln Park gang was known to occupy the apartmen t complex on Solola Avenue. As Lockett started back to his relative's apartment, he saw two black males, one of whom he later identified as Grey, approaching from the parking lot entrance. Another witness heard Jackso n ask the men, "B lood, who is you ni ggers?" After a3 brief exchange, Grey pulled a firearm from his sweatshirt pocket and fire d the weapon, striking Lockett in the stomach as Lockett dove to the ground. Lockett then heard running footsteps and multiple gunshots. A number of these shots stru ck Jackson, who died from his injuries. Police recovered a beanie hat from the scen e with DNA analysis producing a match to Grey's brother. Later that day, Lockett gave a descripti on of the shooter to police, noting that the shooter had a lot of acne on his face. Locke tt, however, did not get a look at the face of Grey's companion. As a re sult of the DNA match, poli ce went to the residence of Grey's brother where they encountered and photographed Grey, who had distinctive acne on his face and appear ed to fit the general descri ption of the shooter. Police recovered from the residence a pamphl et for Bennett's funeral memorial. Police later conducted an audio-recorded photographic lineup with Lockett. Lockett selected Grey's phot ograph out of a five-photogra ph lineup and identified him as the shooter. The detective, however, forgot to have Lockett sign the photograph. The following day, police conducted another au dio-recorded photographic lineup with Lockett. Lockett again iden tified Grey's photograph as the shooter and signed the photograph. Lockett testified at trial he had no doubt and wa s "100 percent" sure Grey was the shooter. A gang expert testified re garding gangs and gang cultu re, including that acts of violence between rival gangs result in violen t retaliation. Based on a hypothetical mirroring the prosecution's evidence, in cluding the shooting death of Bennett4 approximately 30 hours earlier, the gang expert opined that the shooting in this case was committed for the benefit of the Parkside/Skyline gang.
DISCUSSION
I. Removal of Juror A. Background Facts After the prosecution rested its case, the defense called as its second witness an eyewitness identification expert, Dr. Roy Malpass. Although currently retired, Dr. Malpass was previously a professor at a number of unive rsities, including the University of Texas at El Paso. Dr. Malpass has qualified as an expert in courts throughout the United States, and also participated in some na tional studies. During his car eer in academia , Dr. Malpass conducted experiments regarding eyewitnes s identification, including one study which demonstrated that if witnesses are given an unbiased instruction st ating that the suspect may or may not be present in a lineup at the time they ar e shown the lineup, the false positive identification rate decr eases. Dr. Malpass testified that studies performed by some other researchers in his field show th at while there is a small correlation between the confidence an eyewitness ha s in his or her identification and the accuracy of the identification, the correlation is not strong. With respect to the specific li neup used in this case, D r. Malpass observed that the photographic lineup contains only five photographs, wher eas the prevailing consensus throughout the United States including at the Department of Justice is that six photographs should be used. In addition, tw o of the nonsuspect "filler" photographs5 included in the lineup were different than Gr ey's photograph in terms of skin color and facial hair. He concluded that the lineup was biased against Grey. Dr. Malpass noted that a double-blind procedure, where the law enforcement officer administering the lineup does not know the id entity of the suspect, was not used in this case. He commented that because the police placed Grey 's photograph as the last one in the sequential lineup, a witness might feel extra pressure to iden tify a suspect when reaching the last photograph. He also noted th at research showed that when witnesses are placed in stressful situations or situations i nvolving more than one suspect, their ability to make accurate identifications decreases. During a break in Dr. Malpass's testimony on direct examination, Juror Number 8 (the Juror) asked to speak to the court. The following collo quy then occurred: "The Court: We're in my office w ith the two attorneys, the reporter, and [the Juror]. Yes, sir. Go ahea d. Tell us what your concerns are. "[The Juror]: The last w itness stated that he was a professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, an d I believe I am now a biased juror because of that, because I actually attended the University of Texas at El Paso as a student, and I was a participant in some of the psychological studies that were discussed. "The Court: Do you recognize him? "[The Juror]: I do not recognize him. I do not recognize his name, but my fear is that the atmosphere of the researchers that he was a part of influenced me in the pa st, and it has helped me form an opinion, you know, that is biased in the favor of the defense. "The Court: Okay. Let's see. [Defense counsel], do you have any questions you would lik e to ask the juror? "[Defense Counsel]: So what do you mean by biased?6 "[The Juror]: I feel like I have al ready formed an opinion of the -- once the prosecutor rest ed, I felt I already formed a good solid opinion, and unless something else changed, then I almost knew which way I was going to cast my ballot for. But now that this witness has come up, I kind of feel guilty. I feel that I would feel guilty voting in that particular way. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to discuss how I would find the case. "The Court: No. I think we probab ly can infer it from what you said. I don't know that we need to go into that. Let me ask you this: When were you there and partic ipating in those studies? "[The Juror]: Well, there was two periods when I was a student at the University of El Paso. I wa s a student between 1999 and 2000, also from 2006 to 2009, and it wa s during 1999 and 2000 when I participated in a psychological -- psychology class, Introduction to Psychology. And part of the curri culum of that class was essays. And in lieu of writing an essay, you can participate in psychological studies, and I participated in a nu mber of those, including studies that involved eyewit ness identification. "The Court: Okay. You will only -- bias means that you can't be fair anymore. It doesn't mean you ha ve a difference in evidence, and you have to resolve that. Do you th ink that you are so biased, really, against the prosecutor now? "[The Juror]: I believe so . I would feel very bad if I was forced to render a verdict. I'd constantly be questioning myself whether or not I made the right decision. "The Court: [Defense coun sel], any other questions? "[Defense Counsel]: No thanks. "The Court: Mr. Prosecutor, any questions? "[The Prosecutor]: No. "The Court: Thank you for your can dor. But you don't recognize the professor? "[The Juror]: I do not re cognize the professor.7 "The Court: Did you go through th e types of studies he describes where something happens? "[The Juror]: Yes. And followe d up after on it. Afterwards, followed up on the studies. And, like, in the years I followed it, I heard stuff, you know, say, like, repor ts that had -- that were related to those studies, and it would pi que my curiosity because of my involvement on them. I would read up on the reports. I would read their findings that eyewitnesses were very unreliable, according to those studies, and so that influenced my development while I was -- from the late teenage years through my 20's, to form that opinion. "The Court: Thanks. In view of my questions, a ny questions from the defense? "[Defense Counsel]: No. Thanks. "The Court: From the Prosecutor? "[The Prosecutor]: No. Thank you. "The Court: [Juror], why don't you go on out, and I'll talk to the attorneys in here. We'll be with you." Outside of the presence of th e Juror, the colloquy continued: "The Court: The juror has left. Wh at is the position of either side on this? "[The Prosecutor]: It's our position that we excuse him and impanel an alternate or random alternate. "The Court: [Defense counsel]? "[Defense Counsel]: Well, you tell them to reserv e judgment until they get into the deliberation room, and I think he's an example of how that oftentimes doesn't happen, unfortunately. "The Court: I think in view of what he's saying, that I should excuse him. Do I do that with your -- over your objection? "[Defense Counsel]: I'll submit, Your Honor.8 "The Court: Very well. I will go ahead and excuse [the Juror]." B. Analysis Grey complains the court's inquiry was to o cursory and it failed to state specific reasons for removing the Juro r. Even assuming the court's inquiry was sufficient and the failure to state any specific reasons for removing the Juror should be excused, Grey contends his convictions sh ould be reversed because there was no showing to a demonstrable reality of a disqualifying bias on behalf of the Juror. Grey concedes defense counsel did not expressly object to th e removal, but claims the issue is preserved for review as the court had a sua sponte duty to conduct an adequate inquiry, any objection would have b een futile, we have the inherent authority to consider such constitutional issues on the merits absent any objection from defense counsel and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Penal Code section 10 89 "authorizes the trial court to discharge a juror at any time before or after the final submission of the case to the jury if, upon good cause, the juror is 'found to be unable to perform his or her duty.' " ( People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 621.) "A juror who is actually biased is unable to perform the duty to fairly deliberate and thus is subject to discharge." ( People v. Barnwell (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1038, 1051.) Removal of a juror under this statut e is committed to the di scretion of the trial court, and we review whether the grounds fo r such removal appear in the record as a "demonstrable reality." ( People v. Thompson (2010) 49 Cal.4th 79, 137.) "The demonstrable reality test entails a more co mprehensive and less deferential review. It requires a showing that the court as trier of fact did rely on evidence th at, in light of the9 entire record, supports its conclusion that bias was established." ( People v. Barnwell , at pp. 1052-1053.) We do not reweigh the evidence but inquire whether the trial court's conclusion "is manifestly supported by eviden ce on which the court actually relied." ( Id. at p. 1053.) A trial court is in the best position to determine whether a potential juror is sincerely willing and able to listen to the ev idence and the instructions, and render an impartial verdict based on that ev idence and those instructions. ( People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 488-489.) "A reviewing court must a llow the trial court to make this sort of determination. The trial court is present and able to observ e the juror itself. It can judge the person's sincerity and actual state of mind far more reliably than an appellate court reviewing onl y a cold transcript." ( Ibid. ) "The trial court retains discretion about what procedures to employ, including conducting a hearing or detailed inquiry, when determining whet her to discharge a juror." ( People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1159.) Th e "manner in which the trial court conducted its inquiry [on a juro r's fitness to serve] is subj ect to review for abuse of discretion under the typical standard." ( People v. Fuiava (2012) 53 Cal.4th 622, 712, italics deleted.) For example, a trial court has the discretion to decide " 'a juror's disqualification is so clear that fu rther [inquiry] is pointless . . . .' " ( Id. at p. 714.) As a threshold matter, by failing to object to the discharge of the Juror, Grey forfeited his claim that the trial court e rred in excusing the Juror for cause. ( People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 656.) We reject Grey's asserti on that an objection would have been futile as unsuppo rted by the record. ( People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 82010 [defendant will be excused fro m the necessity of a timely ob jection if objection would be futile].) After the prosecutor argued the Juror sh ould be excused, defense counsel conceded the Juror's bias agai nst the prosecution. The tria l court stated its proposed ruling to remove the Juror and essentially inv ited defense counsel to state an objection. The trial court removed the Juror after defe nse counsel did not object to the court's proposed ruling. On this record, we can not say an objection wo uld have been futile. Even assuming Grey had preserve d this claim on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not err. First, we find the trial court did not a buse its discretion in how it conducted its inquiry. After hearing the Juror's concer ns, the trial court questioned the Juror and invited counsel to question the Juror. The co urt ended its inquiry after it and counsel had no further questions. With the benefit of hind sight, we might fault the court for failing to ask additional questions. But we cannot say th at the trial court abused its discretion in how it conducted its inquiry. Additionally, as we shall discuss, the r ecord shows the trial court properly excused th e Juror based on bias against the prosecution. "[A]ctual bias" is "the existence of a st ate of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the pa rties, which will preven t the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party." (Code Civ. Proc., § 225, subd. (b)(1)(C); Pen. Code, § 1046 ["Trial juries for criminal actions are formed in the same manner as trial juries in civil actions."]; People v. Hillhouse , supra , 27 Cal.4th at p. 488.) Here, the Ju ror expressed concern he was biased against the prosecution, explaining that while he did not know Dr. Malpass, he attended11 the university where Dr. Malpass taught, partic ipated in some of the studies Dr. Malpass discussed, followed up on these studies for y ears by reading reports and had formed an opinion on eyewitness testimony in favor of th e defense. The court told the Juror that bias did not mean resolving a difference in the evidence, but rather that he could no longer be fair. It then asked the Juror if he was biased agai nst the prosecution. The Juror expressed his belief that he could not be fair and that he would "feel very bad" if forced to render a verdict. The record shows the Juro r's state of mind regardin g eyewitness testimony made him biased against the prosecution and showed to a demonstrable reality the Juror could not be impartial. Accordingly, the trial c ourt did not err by discha rging the Juror. While Grey complains the trial court should have allowed the Juro r to hear the remainder of Dr. Malpass's testimony before discharging th e Juror, we fail to see how any additional testimony by Dr. Malpass woul d have changed the Juror's opinion based on the Juror's statement he had formed his op inion before Dr. Malpass testif ied and later felt guilty for doing so in light of D r. Malpass's testimony.
II. Jury Instruction A. Background Facts Defense counsel requested the trial cour t modify the instruction regarding the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, CALCRIM No . 315, in a variety of ways including adding language that "[y]ou must view eyewitn ess testimony with caution and evaluate it carefully." The trial court refused Grey 's requested instruction addition, citing People v. Wright (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1126 ( Wright ) and People v. Felix (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 849.12 The trial court also noted it would instruct with CALCRIM No. 301, which cautions the jury to carefully review the testimony when a fact is proven by only one witness. The trial court ultimately instructed the jury with a modified ve rsion of CALCRIM No. 315 as follows (the modifications are italicized): "You have heard eyewitness testim ony identifying the defendant. Each of you alone must evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. As with any other witness, you must decide whether an eyewitness gave truthful and accurate testimony. Consider the possibility that a witness made an honest but mistaken identification. "In evaluating identificati on testimony, consider all of the evidence, including but not limited to the following questions: "• Did the witness know or ha ve contact with the defendant before the event? "• How well could the witn ess see the perpetrator? "• What were the circumstances a ffecting the witnes s's ability to observe, such as lighting, we ather conditions, obstructions, distance between the witness and the perpetrator at the time of observation , and duration of observation? "• How closely was the witness paying attention? "• Was the witness under stress when he or she made the observation? "• Did the witness give a de scription and how does that description compare to the defendant? "• How much time passed betwee n the event and the time when the witness identifie d the defendant? "• Was the witness asked to pick the perpetrator out of a group? "• Did the witness ever fail to identify the defendant?13 "• Did the witness ever chan ge his or her mind about the identification? "• How certain was the witne ss when he or she made an identification? "• Are the witness and the de fendant of diffe rent races? "• Was the witness able to accurately identify other participants in the crime? "• Was the witness able to identify the defendant in a photographic or physical lineup?
"• What was the construction and presentation of the lineup shown to the witnesses? "• Were there any other circum stances affecting the witness's ability to make an acc urate identification? "The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant who comm itted the crime. If the People have not met this burden, you mu st find the defendant not guilty." B. Analysis A trial court is required to instruct a jury on the general principles of law that are relevant to the issues raised by the evidence in a given case. ( People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 115.) A pinp oint instruction relates particular facts to a particular legal theory and "pinpoints" the crux of defendant's case. ( People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45 Cal.4th 789, 824.) A trial court is required to give a pi npoint instruction when defendant requests it and there is evidence that supports the theory. ( Ibid. ) A court need not, however, give a pinpoint instruction that is ar gumentative or duplicative. ( People v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 804, 853.) The failure to include a pinpoint instructi on requires reversal if it is "reasonably probable that had the jury been given defendant's proposed pinpoint14 instruction," it would have come to a different conclusion. ( People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 887.) Here, Grey asserts the trial court prejudi cially erred in rejecting his requested instruction to view eyewitness identification evidence with ca ution. To the extent his proposed language could have been deemed argumentative or inappropriate, he asserts the trial court had a duty to craft appropria te language rather than reject his request outright. Grey concedes that our high court in Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d 1126, rejected a similar instruction, but urges Wright is distinguishable on its fa cts, is not controlling and is out of step with more modern jurisprude nce in both California and other jurisdictions throughout the United St ates. We disagree.
In Wright , the defendant requested th e following instruction: " 'Where the prosecution has offered identification testimon y, that is, the testimony of an eyewitness that he saw the defendant commit the act ch arged, such testimony should be received with caution. An identification by a stranger is not as trustworthy as an identification by an acquaintance. Mistaken id entification is not uncommon, and careful scrutiny of such testimony is especially important.' " ( Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d at p. 1152, fn. 25.) Our high court concluded "this inst ruction was properly refused. [¶] No California case has held that such a cautionary instruction is re quired in addition to th e eyewitness 'factors' instruction. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . A special cautionary in struction is unnecessary because the 'factors' inst ruction already required properly highlights the factors relevant to defendant's concerns about th e reliability of eyewitness id entification testimony in a particular set of circumstances." ( Id. at pp. 1152-1153.)15 The Supreme Court further held that an additional "cautionary instruction given along with the factors inst ruction would place unwarrant ed emphasis on the eyewitness identification, and likely give the ju ry the improper impression that the court considers the eyewitness identification evidence not only particul arly important but also overwhelmingly suspect." ( Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d at at p. 1153.) The court concluded "the eyewitness 'factors' instruction provides the jury with sufficien t means to evaluate eyewitness identification testimony and alerts jurors to the factors that may affect eyewitness identifications. In addition, expe rt testimony may be used when appropriate to further elucidate the effect of the factors listed." ( Id . at p. 1154.) Grey argues his proposed instruction th at a jury "must view eyewitness testimony with caution and evaluate it carefully" is di fferent from the proposed instruction in Wright . ( Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d at p. 1152, fn. 25.) Grey is partially correct. The proposed instruction in Wright sought to inform the jury th at "[m]istaken identification is not uncommon, and careful sc rutiny of such testimony is especially important." ( Ibid. ) The Wright court found this usurped the role of th e jury "as the exclusive trier of fact by binding it to the view that eyewitness id entifications are often mistaken." ( Id. at p. 1153.) While Grey's proposed instruction does not su ffer from the same infi rmity, this difference does not render our high court's ot her conclusions inapplicable. CALJIC No. 2.92, the factor s instruction discussed in Wright , is substantively indistinguishable from CALCRIM No. 315. ( Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d at pp. 1165-1166.) As the Wright court found, the factors instruction al ready highlighted issues relevant to the reliability of eyew itness identification and rendered a general cautionary instruction16 unnecessary. ( Id. at p. 1153.) We are obligated to follow Wright on this point. ( Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 4 55.) Additionally, the trial court instructed with CALCRIM No. 301, wh ich provided the following: "The testimony of only one witness can prove any fact. Befo re you conclude that the testimony of one witness proves a fact, you shou ld carefully review all of the evidence." We presume jurors follow the cour t's instructions and are able to understand a nd correlate the instructions. ( People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852.) The Wright court also concluded a factors in struction, such as CALCRIM No. 315, provides proper guidance to the ju ry on the issues re lated to eyewitness identification and that any explanation of the effects of those factors should be "left to argument by counsel, cross-examination of th e eyewitnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate." ( Wright , supra , 45 Cal.3d at p. 1143.) Althou gh Grey argues at length that recent studies demonstrate the inherent unreliability of eyewitness identification evidence, such studies simply underscore the Wright court's conclusion that how jurors should view eyewitness testimony is best addressed by expert testimony. Finally, we reject Grey's suggestion that in People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183 ( Johnson ) our high court approved a "with cau tion" eyewitness instruction. The issue in Johnson , was whether the modified version of CALJIC No. 2.92 given in that case, which included a cautionary instruction, wa s deficient in other specific areas raised by the defendant. ( Johnson , at pp. 1230-1234.) The Johnson case did not address the court's prior holding in Wright . Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in refusing Grey's requested instruction.17 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

M C INTYRE, J. WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J.
M C DONALD, J.