Opinion ID: 2509517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Removal by Peremptory Challenge

Text: During voir dire, the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges to excuse Prospective Jurors Donna T. and Donna V. Defendant objected, claiming that the prosecutor was systematically excluding Black jurors, in violation of People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748. [2] We will uphold a trial court finding that the defendant has not established a prima facie case if it is supported by substantial evidence. [3] ( People v. Box (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1153, 1189, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 69, 5 P.3d 130; People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 726-727, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Before hearing from the prosecutor on defendant's Wheeler motion, the trial court stated that it was not implicitly finding that the peremptory challenges were for an impermissible purpose. The prosecutor pointed to Donna T.'s responses to his questions during the general voir dire: Q: Mrs. [T.], ... do you as you sit there right now feel sorry for the defendant? A: Yes, I do. Q: Okay, a lot? A little? Some? A: A lot. Q: Okay. And is that because of the situation he's in, or.... A: Yes. The prosecutor noted that Juror Donna T. hesitated when asked if she could vote for the death penalty, [4] and that in answering a question in the jury questionnaire about support for the death penalty, she rated herself as a five on a scale of one to ten. With respect to Prospective Juror Donna V., the prosecutor said he challenged her because of her opposition to the death penalty. During the death-qualifying voir dire she said there should not be a death penalty; she, like Juror Donna T., rated herself at five on the death penalty rating scale. The prosecutor said that the mean average for seated jurors was 7.25, although two of the seated jurors had a five rating. In reply, defense counsel noted that the prosecutor's questioning of Juror Donna T. was short. Regarding Juror Donna V., he said that her problem with the death penalty was her concern that an innocent man might be executed, a circumstance that could not happen here because defendant had already pleaded guilty. After hearing from both sides, the trial court reiterated its finding that defendant had not made a prima facie showing because the prosecution's peremptory challenges to Prospective Jurors Donna T. and Donna V. were objectively reasonable and unrelated to the jurors' race. It therefore denied defendant's Wheeler motion. We agree with the trial court's conclusion.