Opinion ID: 2507854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Misconduct During Voir Dire

Text: Defendant complains next that the trial court's comments during death-qualification voir dire had the effect of encouraging the jury to return a death verdict in violation of his state and federal rights to due process, a fair trial, an unbiased jury, and a reliable guilt and penalty phase determination. The claim is without merit. We observe first that defendant failed to object to any of the comments he now asserts as reversible error and thus has forfeited the claim. ( People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1177, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 1, 998 P.2d 969.) Defendant has not shown that a timely objection or an appropriate admonition could not have cured the harm. ( People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1106, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659; cf. People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 820-822, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 656, 952 P.2d 673.) Even if the claim had been preserved, the record does not support defendant's claim of error. None of the comments identified by defendant can reasonably be characterized as a recruiting drive for jurors who would return a death verdict. (a) After one prospective juror stated he was in favor of the death penalty as long as somebody else does it, the prosecutor explained that there are cases such as this being made out all across the county every day ... where we're asking people from the community who don't know the attorneys, don't know any of the witnesses, to come in and vote their moral conscience. The prosecutor then turned to a different prospective juror and asked whether the juror could offer the benefit of his honesty, intelligence, common sense, and experience in coming to a fair and just verdict in this case. When the juror said he could, the court commented that there were at least two capital cases currently in the courthouse. The court's comment in no way diminished the gravity of the jury's task. To the contrary, the court informed the venire that [t]his is an important case to both sides, and it's an important case to society. It's an important case to you if you serve on the case. It's an important case to you even if you don't serve on the case. (b) When a prospective juror stated that he supported the death penalty because he believed it was a deterrent, the court agreed that it was a deterrent to the person executed but warned that the notion of general deterrence was a controversial one and, more importantly, that the juror's task was not to send any message to any future criminal that may be out in the community to stop them from committing crimes by your conduct of a particular capital case. [¶] So the moral is, you should not impose a death sentence for the reason solely of deterrent but only if it's the appropriate punishment as to the particular individual who is being sentenced. Okay? This was not error. (Cf. People v. Bittaker, supra, 48 Cal.3d at pp. 1105-1106, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659.) (c) In discussing the evidence that might be presented at a potential penalty phase, the court explained to a prospective juror that aggravating factors may be other bad things, bad conduct, possible criminal conduct of the defendant, that naturally points you towards the death penalty. You are also entitled to consider as an aggravating factor the crime that you just had found the defendant guilty of. [¶] The mitigating factors will be offered by the defense, generally speaking, and they are substantially unlimited. [¶] Can you assure us that you will be open to be persuaded by both sides as they offer mitigating and aggravating circumstances during the penalty phase of the trial? Several days later, the court advised a different prospective juror that the charged murders are factors potentially of aggravation that you can use that naturally point to the death penalty. But you will not lock yourself in, no matter how bad the crimes, until you have heard all the evidence to the death penalty. [¶] In other words, you would be open, right? [¶] ... [¶] If during the course of the trial ... you hear something about the defendant that [is] sympathetic, then you can use [it] in the penalty phase. In neither instance did the trial court instruct the panel that particular evidence naturally led to the imposition of the death penalty. Rather, the court merely defined aggravating circumstances as those that weigh in favor of death and mitigating circumstances as those that weigh in favor of a life sentence. (d) Early in the process, the court exhorted the panel that [f]or those of you that actually serve on the case, many of you may believe that it's the most important thing that you do in your whole life. So that's the commercial for you to consider strongly, forgetting about the lame excuses you were thinking about giving me, to honor your oath as a juror and do the job that society requires as appropriately honest and decent citizens. Several days later, after discussing with a prospective juror the need for a panel that has the inner strength to fairly consider either sentencing option according to the evidence, the court referred back to its earlier statement that these kinds of cases often times are the most rewarding thing, in a sense of doing something for society that many of the jurors will ever experience in their whole [lives]. So I would urge you to stay on the case, all of you, if you can, if you meet all the qualifications and have the appropriate tenacity. [¶] So how do you feel about it? Are you interested in staying or do you want out of here? This record flatly rebuts defendant's claim that the court's comments indicated that only a death verdict would demonstrate tenacity and would be rewarding to those who served. (e) In examining a prospective juror who was a witness in a different trial (and was ultimately excused from the venire), the court elicited that the juror believed in the death penalty and believed that somebody who valued life would not take somebody else's life. The juror also stated that she would not be the type of person you guys are looking for. When defense counsel then interrupted to announce that he and the prosecutor had stipulated to the dismissal of this prospective juror because of her testimonial obligations in the other courtroom, the court joked to the prosecutor, Okay. She's saying a lot of good things here, though. Defense counsel replied that he had mentioned that to the prosecutor, who groused that the prospective juror had said those things after I was willing to stipulate, so I'm stuck with it. Defendant's contention that the court, through this exchange, made it unmistakably clear to the venire that a death verdict was warranted in this case is fanciful, and we reject it. In sum, none of these statements communicated a strong judicial partisanship on the material matter of the penalty.