Opinion ID: 2546413
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Questioning on Racial Bias

Text: Defendant is of Puerto Rican descent. His victim, Roland Teal, was African-American. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to adequately question the prospective jurors as to whether racial prejudice might affect their impartiality. As with the previous claim regarding the possible impact of pretrial publicity on the jurors, we find defendant did not preserve this claim for appeal because he failed to object to the questionnaire or to the manner or completeness of the court's questioning concerning racial prejudice. ( People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 61-62, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129; see also Turner v. Murray, supra, 476 U.S. at p. 37, 106 S.Ct. 1683.) We also reject the claim on the merits. Question 47 in the jury questionnaire asked: A part(ies), attorney(s) or witness(es) may come from a particular national, racial or religious group or has a life style different from your own. Would that fact affect your judgment or the weight and credibility you would give to his or her testimony. Although, as defendant urges, this question is not a model of clarity, all 12 jurors answered it in the negative. This was not a case in which racial prejudice was an obvious issue. (See People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 854-855, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15.) We emphasize that a trial court retains discretion as to the form and number of questions on the subject, including the decision whether to question the venire individually or collectively. ( Turner v. Murray, supra, at p. 37, 106 S.Ct. 1683.) Because defendant does not explain how the jury questionnaire was inadequate to reveal hidden racial discrimination among the jurors, and because it appears he had sufficient information to intelligently exercise his challenges, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the jury questionnaire to address the issue of possible racial bias among the prospective jurors. Finally, defendant emphasizes that the cumulative effect of a restrictive [voir dire] process ... undermined the proper purpose of jury selection and requires reversal. Having found no abuse of discretion and no constitutional violation, we also reject the claim of cumulative prejudice.