Opinion ID: 1238139
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hypothetical Scenario

Text: (7a) Defendant next contends the prosecutor improperly influenced prospective jurors to prejudge guilt. (8) It is, of course, well settled that the examination of prospective jurors should not be used `to educate the jury panel to the particular facts of the case, to compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way, to prejudice the jury for or against a particular party, to argue the case, to indoctrinate the jury, or to instruct the jury in matters of law.' ( People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392, 408 [174 Cal. Rptr. 317, 628 P.2d 869], quoting Rousseau v. West Coast House Movers (1967) 256 Cal. App.2d 878, 882 [64 Cal. Rptr. 655].) (7b) The prosecutor posed a hypothetical scenario to the jury panel and asked for individual responses. Essentially, he asked the jurors to state whether they would be able to vote guilty if, after deliberations, they were persuaded that the charges had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel objected on the ground that he did not understand the question. The trial court overruled the objection, finding that the question was clear and that the jurors were able to understand it. Thereafter, the prosecutor explained to the jurors that he was not trying to bias you or trying to get you to believe [defendant] is already guilty.... Rather, he explained, he posed the question simply because some people have difficulty voting guilty regardless of the evidence. Defendant failed to object to the hypothetical question on the ground now asserted on appeal; thus his objection is waived. ( People v. Ratliff, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 691.) Moreover, we discern no impermissible attempt by the prosecutor, in the guise of the hypothetical scenario, to influence prospective jurors to vote guilty; nor do we perceive any possibility that such influence occurred. [7]