Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of challenges based on jurors' views concerning the death penalty

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying eight challenges to jurors under Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841. A prospective juror who would invariably vote either for or against the death penalty because of one or more circumstances likely to be present in the case being tried, without regard to the strength of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, is . . . subject to challenge for cause. . . . ( People v. Kirkpatrick (1994) 7 Cal.4th 988, 1005, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 818, 874 P.2d 248.) If the prospective juror's statements are conflicting or equivocal, the court's determination of the actual state of mind is binding. If the statements are consistent, the court's ruling will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Horning (2004) 34 Cal.4th 871, 896-897, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 305, 102 P.3d 228.) Under this deferential standard of review, we find no error. The trial judge concluded that each of the prospective jurors at issue (none of whom ultimately served on the jury) would follow the court's instructions and consider the relevant circumstances before making a decision. As we explain below, the trial court's conclusions are supported by the record.