Opinion ID: 1801790
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Juror N.T.

Text: Prospective Juror N.T.'s responses in her questionnaire and on voir dire reflected that she had been a volunteer tutor and counselor at the CYA for five years. She indicated that, because of her prior CYA experience, she tended to favor the defense in terms of sympathy or compassion and had an uneasy feeling about imposing such a permanent punishment as the death penalty. Although Prospective Juror N.T. related in her questionnaire that she believed she should hear all of the evidence before deciding the penalty, her responses on voir dire reflected otherwise. She asserted she would be more inclined to vote for life instead of death. When questioned by the trial court if she could ever vot[e] for death, she replied, I don't believe I could. When asked if there was any circumstance in which she would vote for death, she responded she would lean towards dea[th] in cases involving serial killers. When questioned by the prosecutor, Prospective Juror N.T.'s responses became more definitive. Initially, she stated it would be very difficult for her ever to vote for death. When questioned again if she could see herself ever voting for the death penalty, she responded, In this case, knowing what I know, I don't think so. She explained that, because the case did not involve an extreme mass murder, she could not return a death verdict. As a final clarification, the prosecutor asked, As far as you are concerned, the only case you could see yourself personally ever voting for the death penalty would be in a situation where there was a mass murder? Prospective Juror N.T. replied, I would have to be shown that, yes. When the court asked defense counsel if he wanted to question Prospective Juror N.T., counsel responded no. The record here supports the trial court's decision to excuse Prospective Juror N.T. for cause. ( People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 169 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150] [prospective juror's assertion he could never impose the death penalty in a case that did not involve mass murder supported excusal for cause]; see also People v. Ochoa (2001) 26 Cal.4th 398, 430-432 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78] [prospective juror's belief he could not consider voting for death in case at hand supported excusal for cause].) Again, defense counsel's failure to object suggests counsel concurred in the assessment that the juror was excusable. ( People v. Schmeck, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 262.) To the extent her responses could support multiple inferences, we defer to the trial court's determination of her unfitness to serve. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 432.)