Opinion ID: 1203248
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Peremptory Challenge of Jurors With Reservations About the Death Penalty

Text: (2) Defendant argues that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors with reservations about the death penalty deprived him of his rights under the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to a fundamentally fair and reliable determination of penalty by a jury that fairly represented the community. Respondent claims any error was waived by failure to object below, while defendant claims we must assume that the objection was made at unreported bench conferences. Even assuming that defendant is correct on the procedural point, we have rejected his argument consistently on the merits. ( People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 315 [208 Cal. Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669], overruled on other grounds in People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104 [240 Cal. Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306]; see also People v. Gordon (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1223, 1263 [270 Cal. Rptr. 451, 792 P.2d 251]; People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal.3d 207, 249 [253 Cal. Rptr. 55, 763 P.2d 906].) [3] (3) Similarly, we have consistently rejected the argument defendant raises in a footnote for preservation, that excusal for cause of jurors whose opposition to the death penalty would interfere with their ability to follow the instructions at the penalty phase denied him a fair and representative jury on the issue of guilt, in violation of his Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (See, e.g., People v. Pensinger (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1210, 1254 [278 Cal. Rptr. 640, 805 P.2d 899]; People v. Thompson (1990) 50 Cal.3d 134, 157 [266 Cal. Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857], relying on Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 174-176 [90 L.Ed.2d 137, 148-149, 106 S.Ct. 1758].)