Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror K.

Text: Prospective Juror K. demonstrated his hostility to the death penalty in the course of the initial Hovey questioning by the trial court. Asked whether he would refuse to find defendant guilty or to find a special circumstance true in order to avoid having to discuss the death penalty with the other jurors, Prospective Juror K. indicated that he was extremely uneasy about this subject and did not believe he could cope with voting in favor of the death penalty. Asked whether he had any opinion about the death penalty that would prevent him from being a fair and impartial juror and following the law, he responded that sending anybody to the death penalty would bother him. The trial court asked whether, if defendant were proven guilty, Prospective Juror K. could discuss the death penalty with the other jurors and state that although he did not want to impose it, the facts of the case warranted that punishment. The prospective juror responded that he did not know but also indicated that he could follow the law. Questioned by defense counsel whether he could consider the death penalty and whether he could conceive of circumstances so egregious that the death penalty would be appropriate, Prospective Juror K. stated that he did not know. Questioned by the prosecutor whether he thought it would be difficult to be a juror in the present case, given his views, he stated that it would. Asked by the trial court whether he could look at defendant and inform him that he had decided defendant should die, Prospective Juror K. responded, No. Asked by the defense whether he could vote for death if the facts established guilt, Prospective Juror K. stated that he did not want to go through it, and asked to be placed on another trial and taken away from this. It is readily apparent that Prospective Juror K.'s views in opposition to the death penalty would `prevent or substantially impair' the performance of the juror's duties as defined by the court's instructions and the juror's oath. ( People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83, 121, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887.) The trial court did not err in granting the prosecutor's challenge for cause.