Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prospective Juror M.

Text: Questioned by defense counsel, Prospective Juror M. indicated he understood that he was not obligated to vote for the death penalty. Questioned whether he would consider both alternate punishments and vote for the sentence he felt was appropriate based upon his individual determination, he responded in the affirmative. Asked by the prosecutor how he felt about the death penalty, Prospective Juror M. stated it had a place in our society for crime running rampant and that it's something we need. During general voir dire, he indicated that capital punishment was valid in certain cases when first degree murder was proven. Although he stated he was speculating, in such a case he was more apt to vote for the death penalty than for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Prospective Juror M. exhibited a slight preference for the death penalty in first degree murder cases, but also indicated he would vote as the circumstances of the individual case warranted, and not that he would vote for the death penalty in general in such a case. (See People v. Lucas, supra, 12 Cal.4th 415, 480, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373.) To the extent his responses were conflicting, the trial court's determination of his true state of mind is binding upon this court. ( People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th 900, 987, 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.)