Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Motion to question penalty jury

Text: Section 190.4, subdivision (c), provides that the same jury that decided guilt and special circumstances is to decide penalty unless for good cause shown, the court discharges that jury in which case a new jury shall be drawn.... (62) At the start of the penalty phase defendant moved to question the jury to determine whether there was good cause for its discharge. He asserts the court erred in denying his motion. We find no error. First, as we have held in numerous cases, the statutory preference for a single jury in capital cases is constitutionally unobjectionable. ( People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 351-353 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680].) Second, although section 190.4 envisions departure from this course on a showing of good cause, we reject defendant's speculation that because he may have conducted an inadequate voir dire at the guilt phase, and/or may have alienated the jury during the guilt trial, there existed grounds to question the jury a second time before the penalty trial. A court does not abuse its discretion by failing to allow a disappointed defendant to conduct a fishing expedition to attempt to discover good cause when there is no independent basis to believe good cause exists.