Opinion ID: 1399120
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Refusal to Reopen Voir Dire

Text: After the jury returned its verdict in the guilt phase of trial, but before the penalty trial began, defendant moved, under section 190.4, subdivision (c) [16] (hereafter section 190.4(c)), to reopen voir dire or for impanelment of a new jury for the penalty phase. Defense counsel stated he did not know, when the jury was selected, that Brian Buckley would be testifying against defendant. As a consequence, counsel contended, he had not had an adequate opportunity to question prospective jurors about bias associated with a coperpetrator's testimony. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that even if defense counsel would have conducted voir dire differently knowing that Buckley was to testify, any claim of prejudice was purely speculative and did not establish good cause for relief. (30) Defendant now contends the ruling denied him his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. We conclude that the trial court did not err. We have often observed that section 190.4(c) reflects the long-standing legislative preference for a single jury to determine both guilt and penalty. ( People v. Nicolaus (1991) 54 Cal.3d 551, 572 [286 Cal. Rptr. 628, 817 P.2d 893]; People v. Taylor (1990) 52 Cal.3d 719, 738 [276 Cal. Rptr. 391, 801 P.2d 1142]; People v. Ainsworth, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1029; People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1199 [240 Cal. Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301].) Defendant suggests that the efficiency concerns in which this preference is (at least in part) rooted should have given way in his case, because reopening voir dire would not have consumed much time. His argument reflects a misunderstanding of our decisions applying section 190.4(c). Voir dire is not to be reopened on speculation that good cause to impanel a new jury may thereby be discovered; rather, a showing of good cause is a prerequisite to reopening. ( People v. Gates, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1199.) Defendant has raised only speculation that some jurors may have entertained some hidden bias regarding the testimony of a coperpetrator or that they may have prejudged the issue of penalty. He fails to establish error, constitutional or otherwise. Defendant also complains that prosecutorial misconduct  in the form of concealment of Buckley's status as a witness  prevented defense counsel from conducting appropriate voir dire. We disagree. Although the trial court accepted, for purposes of argument, defense counsel's representation that he was surprised that Buckley became a prosecution witness, a review of the chronology of pertinent events lessens the weight that might otherwise be accorded to the trial court's statement. Buckley was arrested and arraigned before the conclusion of Hovey ( People v. Hovey (1988) 44 Cal.3d 543 [244 Cal. Rptr. 121, 749 P.2d 776]) voir dire in defendant's case; Buckley's preliminary hearing was held before counsel began to question the first 12 seated jurors; and defense counsel acknowledged that he had heard, even before Buckley's arraignment, that the prosecution was going to offer to let Buckley plead guilty to second degree murder if he would testify against defendant. It is also noteworthy that, shortly before the commencement of voir dire, the trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude his confession on the basis of Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. 436. Defendant points out that the prosecution moved to prevent him from calling Buckley as a witness in order to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in the presence of the jury, and that the motion remained pending until after the jury was seated. He also notes that Buckley signed his plea agreement on the day the prosecutor made his opening statement, although the prosecutor had not disclosed the existence of any negotiations with Buckley. However, in light of the other circumstances known to defense counsel, these facts cannot be deemed controlling. Nothing prevented defense counsel from conducting voir dire in light of what seems in hindsight to have been a realistic possibility that Buckley would testify against defendant. He may not now complain about his decision not to do so. [17]