Opinion ID: 2515784
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Jurors A.R. and R.P.

Text: The prosecutor also exercised peremptory challenges against Prospective Jurors A.R. and R.P. Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly excused these individuals, both Hispanic, solely on the ground of group bias, and that the trial court erred in failing to rule on his Wheeler motion pertaining to them. No one objected on Wheeler grounds to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges against A.R. and R.P. During the hearing on the Wheeler motion as to Prospective Juror G.B., however, counsel for defendant noted that A.R., a death penalty advocate, had been excused, and that there was some question about R.P. but that he indicated he could be fair and follow the law. He argued that G.B. exhibited no biases and concluded: Given the circumstances, I believe that a Wheeler motion is present and that a new jury should be impaneled. Defendant argues the above statements about A.R. and R.P. constituted a timely Wheeler motion objectioning to their excusal, and that the trial court erred in failing to address it. We disagree. Defense counsel's brief comments regarding their excusal came in the context of arguing that G.B. had been improperly excused based on group bias, and we do not construe counsel's comments as a Wheeler objection regarding the excusal of A.R. and R.P. Accordingly, he failed to preserve this claim for appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 105, 270 Cal.Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23.)