Opinion
Page 1018a
29 Cal.4th 1018a ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAURICE BOYETTE, Defendant and Appellant. S032736. Supreme Court of California February 11, 2003[Modification of opinion (29 Cal.4th 381; 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 544; 58 P.3d 391).]
This modification requires editorial changes to headnote (10), page 387. In the bound volume report, the following sentences will replace the last sentence in the headnote: Further, in assessing whether a defendant has established a prima facie showing of group bias, a "strong likelihood" means "a reasonable inference." But even if these are two different standards and the "reasonable inference" standard is more lenient, the trial court's finding that defendant had not established a prima facie showing of group bias was supportable.
OPINION
THE COURT.
The opinion herein, filed December 2, 2002, appearing at 29 Cal.4th 381, is modified as follows:
1. Delete the first full paragraph on page 423 and replace it with the following paragraph:
Defendant also contends the trial court used the wrong standard in assessing whether he had established a prima facie showing of group bias. He claims he need only "raise an inference" of such bias, whereas we have held he must "show a strong likelihood" of such bias. (See Wade v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2000) 202 F.3d 1190 [discussing a perceived difference between the two standards].) However, as we have explained, "in California, a 'strong likelihood' means 'a reasonable inference.' " (People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1188, fn. 7 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, P.3d 130]; see People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 280-281 [148 Cal.Rptr. 890].) Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the two standards were different, and that the "reasonable inference" standard were more lenient, the court's ruling finding that defendant had not established a prima facie showing of group bias was supportable.
2. Delete the words "guilt phase" in line 9 of the ninth full paragraph on page 455 of the opinion and replace it with "penalty phase."
This modification does not affect the judgment.