Opinion ID: 1122547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged wrongful failure to exclude jurors for cause

Text: (7a) Defendant contends the trial court improperly denied defense motions to excuse for cause three prospective jurors who possessed views favoring the death penalty that defendant alleges would have impaired their ability to be fair and impartial. The three prospective jurors never were impaneled, however, having been excused following defense counsel's exercise of peremptory challenges against them. Defendant nonetheless argues that the trial court's failure to exclude these prospective jurors for cause violated his rights to a fair and impartial jury under the federal and state Constitutions. (8) Both Constitutions guarantee a defendant a trial by an impartial jury. ( Williams v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 736, 739-740 [263 Cal. Rptr. 503, 781 P.2d 537].) (9) A juror may be challenged for cause based upon his or her views of capital punishment if those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties in accordance with the court's instructions and the juror's oath. ( Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852, 105 S.Ct. 844].) (10) A defendant who claims that the trial court wrongly denied a challenge for cause must demonstrate that his or her right to a fair and impartial jury was affected. ( People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1087-1088.) (7b) Defendant fails to make the requisite showing. At the time the jury was sworn, he had 16 peremptory challenges remaining. Thus, defendant cannot demonstrate that his ability to excuse peremptorily any other juror was affected by his decision to exercise peremptory challenges against the three jurors in question. ( People v. Raley (1992) 2 Cal.4th 870, 904-905 [8 Cal. Rptr.2d 678, 830 P.2d 712]; People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 518-519 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 677, 822 P.2d 385]; People v. Howard (1988) 44 Cal.3d 375, 419, fn. 17 [243 Cal. Rptr. 842, 749 P.2d 279].) Because defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges, he must justify his failure to do so. ( People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1087-1088.) He contends the presence of five other pro-death persons remaining among the jury venirepersons on the panel inhibited defense counsel's exercise of peremptory challenges. We rejected a similar argument in People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 401-402 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 106, 821 P.2d 610], noting that defendant had failed to demonstrate that exhausting his remaining peremptory challenges would have led to the seating of a juror subject to removal for cause. In the present case, if defendant was dissatisfied with the jury as comprised, he could have exercised his remaining peremptory challenges, regardless of the views of venirepersons yet to be impaneled. No error appears. [11]