People v. Kessee CA2/4

── People v. Kessee CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Kessee CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B311352 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. TA146654) v. SAMUEL P. JACKSON and KEJON KESSEE, Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael J. Shultz, Judge. Vacated and stricken in part with directions; Affirmed in part. Gregory L. Rickard, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Samuel P. Jackson. Winston Kevin McKesson for Defendant and Appellant Kejon Kessee. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and William H. Shin and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.  INTRODUCTION In May 2013, defendants Samuel Jackson and Kejon Kessee, both South Side Compton Crips gang members, drove into rival gang territory looking for someone to kill. Kessee spotted a man riding a bicycle and incorrectly identified him as a rival gang member. Jackson exited the vehicle and fatally shot the man. Defendants were tried together but before separate juries. Jackson’s jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true gang and firearm allegations. Kessee’s jury convicted him of second degree murder and likewise found true gang and gang-related firearm allegations. On appeal, defendants assert a long list of errors. The Attorney General concedes that the gang and gang-related firearm enhancements cannot stand, due to a change in the law, but disputes the remainder of defendants’ contentions. We agree with the Attorney General. FACTUAL BACKGROUND I. Prosecution Evidence Against Both Defendants a. The Shooting On May 23, 2013, around 11:20 a.m., Alesha Palmer was washing dishes when she heard a gunshot. She looked out her kitchen window and saw that a young Black man, later identified as the victim, had been shot while riding his bike. Palmer also saw a “box-shaped dark gray square car.” Palmer called the police and told the operator she heard “one loud shot.” She also described the car as a gray “SUV-type truck.” Palmer later told the police that the car was “box-shaped, low to the ground, and dark smoke gray.” The car was driving “casual,” playing loud music, and did not speed off. Evidence set forth below indicated that the defendants were driving a Jeep Patriot at the time of the shooting. But when asked at trial if the car she saw was a Jeep, Palmer said it was “not quite as boxy.” Around 11:25 a.m., Deputy Esteban Rodriguez of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) responded to the crime scene. At the scene, Deputy Rodriguez saw the victim lying on the street with a gunshot wound to his abdomen. The victim was straddling a black bicycle, with one leg under the bike and another leg over it. He was gasping for air but not 2 responsive. There was a possible bullet strike mark on the gray stucco wall of a nearby building. There was also a bullet fragment in the middle of the street.