Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's Exclusion from Jury Selection Hearing

Text: A criminal defendant's federal constitutional right to be present at trial, largely rooted in the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, also enjoys protection through the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments [citation] `whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defendant against the charge,' but not `when presence would be useless, or the benefit but a shadow.' ( Kentucky v. Stincer (1987) 482 U.S. 730, 745 [107 S.Ct. 2658, 2667, 96 L.Ed.2d 631], quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934) 291 U.S. 97, 105-107 [54 S.Ct. 330, 332-333, 78 L.Ed. 674, 90 A.L.R. 575].) Article I, section 15 of the California Constitution applies the same standard. [Citation]. ( People v. Ochoa, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 433, 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 324, 28 P.3d 78.) Defendant contends these rights were violated by his exclusion from an in camera proceeding during voir dire at which the prosecutor and defense counsel passed for cause and each exercised three peremptory challenges. Even if his exclusion was error, he fails to show prejudice. ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1357, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 [Defendant has the burden of demonstrating that his absence prejudiced his case or denied him a fair trial].) Defendant cites nothing in the record to support his generalized claim that, during this session, his attorney excused any juror whom defendant would have wanted to retain; thus his argument is speculative. Defendant's further claim that he was unable to review the prosecutor's choices is similarly unconvincing. The only ground on which the defense could have objected to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges would have been for the discriminatory use of such challenges under Wheeler/Batson but defendant fails to show that any such issue arose during the in camera session. His remaining claim, that defense counsel failed to excuse a juror who had connections to the victim and her family, also fails. The defense did not exhaust its peremptory challenges at the in camera session and could have excused the juror subsequently. That the juror was not excused cannot be attributed to defendant's absence from the in camera session.