Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Juror L.

Text: Asked by defense counsel whether there were any circumstances in which the death penalty may be appropriate, Prospective Juror L. indicated that it might be appropriate in the case of premeditated murder. Asked whether a person convicted of first degree premeditated murder should receive the death penalty, he answered, Probably. Asked whether he believed every first degree murder warrants the death penalty, he responded that it would depend upon the circumstances, but in general, yes. Questioned by the prosecutor whether everyone who commits murder should receive the death penalty, Prospective Juror L. indicated he did not so believe. Asked whether the death penalty should be applied in the case of someone who commits murder in the course of a serious felony such as rape, robbery, or burglary, as he had stated with regard to premeditated murder, he responded: No, it's not the same, and that all the facts should be considered. Asked whether he would follow the law if it was different from what he believed, he said, Well, I have to. You have to obey the law.... During general voir dire, he stated that he probably would believe the testimony of a police officer over that of another witness, but would not prejudge the testimony. Prospective Juror L. stated an initial generalized opinion as to the type of case probably meriting the death penalty but subsequently expressed an ability to consider the facts of the particular case, and an understanding that he would be required to, and would, follow the law. In People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 480-481, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373, we concluded that the trial court did not err in denying the challenge for cause of a prospective juror who similarly indicated that she probably would vote for death in any case of multiple murder, but also promised to keep an open mind. To the extent Prospective Juror L.'s 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.)