Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Juror L. H.

Text: During voir dire, Prospective Juror L.H. stated she tended to favor life imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, as the appropriate punishment. She observed that she could keep an open mind, but would have to be really convinced before returning a death verdict. Although the trial court had explained at some length that neither side bore a burden of proof in the penalty phase, when asked by the prosecutor if she would place a burden of proof on either party regarding the appropriate punishment, she responded, Prosecution. At best, L.H. appeared equivocal about the death penalty, and at worst, she appeared biased against it. Defendant claims that although she stated during voir dire that she would lean toward imposing life imprisonment, she also said she could keep an open mind. That a juror is equivocal about his or her ability to impose the death penalty is relevant to a challenge for cause, but does not undercut the raceneutral basis for a prosecutor's decision to excuse a prospective juror peremptorily. ( People v. Catlin (2001) 26 Cal.4th 81, 118, 109 Cal.Rptr.2d 31, 26 P.3d 357.) The record strongly suggests the prosecutor had grounds for concern about her possible bias against the death penalty, and on this basis, was entitled to excuse her.