Opinion ID: 1159477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Asserted Error in Excluding Veniremen Opposed to Capital Punishment

Text: (16) Defendants contend that several veniremen were improperly excused for cause on the ground of their opposition to capital punishment. Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, held that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. [6] Here the record shows that the jury was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause on a basis that was not permissible under Witherspoon. For example, one venireman was asked, Do you have any settled conviction with respect to the use of the death penalty in a proper case?, and, upon his reply, Yes, sir, I don't believe in capital punishment, the court excused him on its own motion. Under the mandate of Witherspoon the death penalties must be reversed. (17) Defendants further assert that the exclusion of veniremen on the ground of their opposition toward capital punishment denied defendants their right to an unbiased jury representing a cross-section of the community at the guilt phase of their trial. However, as we recently stated in In re Eli, 71 Cal.2d 214, 218 [77 Cal. Rptr. 665, 454 P.2d 337], and In re Arguello, 71 Cal.2d 13, 16 [76 Cal. Rptr. 633, 452 P.2d 921], [I]n the absence of persuasive documentation we must agree with the United States Supreme Court that `We ... cannot conclude, either on the basis of the record now before us or as a matter of judicial notice, that the exclusion of jurors opposed to capital punishment results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of guilt or substantially increases the risk of conviction.' ( Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, 517-518 ...; see also Anderson and Saterfield, ... 69 Cal.2d 613, 617, 620-621 [73 Cal. Rptr. 21, 447 P.2d 117]; People v. Gonzales, 66 Cal.2d 482, 498-499....) (18) Defendants request an evidentiary hearing on the matter but (1) do not state whether or not they are now prepared for such a hearing and (2) give no indication of the nature of the evidence they intend to introduce. Under these circumstances an evidentiary hearing is not warranted. ( In re Eli, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 218; In re Arguello, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 17.)