Opinion ID: 2584939
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Death Prone Prospective Jurors

Text: Defendant contends 11 prospective jurors were death prone, should have been excused for cause, and were wrongly retained in the jury pool. He acknowledges, however, that he removed seven of these 11 jurors with his own peremptory challenges, and therefore complains of only four of them (Prospective Jurors Nos. 1349, 1323, 1622, and 1626) who remained on the panel after he exercised his final peremptory challenge. However, although these four prospective jurors may have remained on the panel for some time, none of them actually wound up selected to serve on defendant's petit jury. Because these prospective jurors did not sit on defendant's jury, `[d]efendant could not possibly have suffered prejudice as a result of the court's refusal to excuse them at his request.' ( People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 487-488 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 45, 40 P.3d 754], quoting People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 146 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 954 P.2d 990]; see People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 913 [111 Cal.Rptr.2d 2, 29 P.3d 103]; Ross v. Oklahoma (1988) 487 U.S. 81, 86 [101 L.Ed.2d 80, 108 S.Ct. 2273].) Accordingly, we need not resolve the substance of defendant's argument because the record reflects no possibility of prejudice. ( People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 648 [280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351].)