Opinion ID: 2607459
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to grant additional peremptory challenges

Text: (8) Defendant contends the trial court erred in not granting his timely and repeated request for at least 10 more peremptory challenges. He insists he was entitled to additional challenges as a matter of right under the federal Constitution. Defendant also claims that by, among other things, artificially limiting the number of prospective jurors against whom peremptories might be exercised, the trial court improperly precluded itself from exercising its state law discretion to grant additional challenges during the selection process. Both claims must be rejected. [T]o establish the constitutional entitlement to additional peremptory challenges argued for here, a criminal defendant must show at the very least that in the absence of such additional challenges he is reasonably likely to receive an unfair trial before a partial jury. ( People v. Bonin, supra, 46 Cal.3d 659, 679.) Logic dictates that no more lenient standard applies to nonconstitutional claims of error in denying additional peremptory challenges. The standard of likely partiality is not met here. As noted above, defendant has not demonstrated that the trial court erroneously denied any challenges for cause. Nor did any of the allegedly biased prospective jurors he identifies on appeal actually serve on the jury. No basis for reversal appears.