Opinion ID: 2594735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecution's Challenges for Cause

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in granting the prosecution's challenge for cause of two prospective jurors, Dolores J. and Ibrahim K. A for cause challenge to a prospective juror should be sustained when the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the juror's ability to perform his or her duties in accordance with the instructions and oath. ( Wainwright v. Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at p. 424, 105 S.Ct. 844; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 456, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388.) A reviewing court examines the context in which the trial court ruled to determine if its decision is fairly supported by the record. ( People v. Crittenden (1994) 9 Cal.4th 83, 122, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) If a prospective juror's responses to voir dire questions are halting, equivocal, or even conflicting, we defer to the trial court's evaluation of a prospective juror's state of mind, and such evaluation is binding on appellate courts. ( People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1094, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36.) The record here supports the trial court's decision to excuse Prospective Juror J. for cause. When initially questioned by the court and counsel, J. said that although she generally opposed the death penalty, in an appropriate case she could vote to impose the death sentence. During a noon recess, however, J. wrote a note to the court about her previous answers, stating in part: Although my answers favored the death penalty, to me every life should be held precious and I have changed my mind. It became clear upon further examination that J. would not vote for the death penalty in any case. For example, when the prosecutor asked J. if she would always vote for life without possibility of parole no matter what kind of case it was, she answered, that's right. The record also supports the trial court's decision to excuse Prospective Juror K. for cause. K. said on voir dire that he could never impose the death penalty in a case that did not involve mass murder and that he would vote for the punishment of life without possibility of parole in every case.