Opinion ID: 2594892
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excusing a Prospective Juror for Cause

Text: Veasley argues that the trial court erroneously excused one prospective juror for cause because of his views on the death penalty. The defendants did not object to the court's excusing the juror, but they also refused to stipulate to it. Contrary to the Attorney General's argument, this failure to object does not forfeit the right to raise the issue on appeal, although it does suggest counsel concurred in the assessment that the juror was excusable. ( People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 818, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 219, 905 P.2d 1305.) On the merits, we find no error. The trial court may excuse for cause a prospective juror whose views on the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties. On appeal, we uphold the trial court's ruling if the record fairly supports it, and we accept as binding the trial court's determination of the juror's true state of mind if the juror has made conflicting or ambiguous statements. ( People v. Mayfield (1997) 14 Cal.4th 668, 727, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 928 P.2d 485.) Here, the court found that the juror had views that he simply can't put aside, and that his views both personal and religious will substantially impair his performance as a juror. The juror expressed concerns on the juror questionnaire about his ability to return the death penalty. At voir dire, he said that he believed there is never an appropriate time to take one's life. He also said he would try to follow the court's instruction, yet when it comes right down to it, it would be hard to disengage what I believe with how I make my decision. He thought he would not want to use the death penalty no matter how aggravating the circumstances, and he did not really know whether he could ever impose the death penalty. When the court specifically asked whether his views would substantially affect his ability to follow the law, he responded, I think they might. I think there's an issue of the law and then there's the thing against principles that may rise above that at the time, and that's where that might come into play. These statements support the court's ruling.