Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Granting of Prosecution's For-cause Challenges

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court erred in excusing two prospective jurors, R. J., and R. A. for their alleged bias against the death penalty. We discuss each claim below.
In his written questionnaire, R. J. noted that he was ambivalent about the death penalty, but denied having conscientious or other objections to it, and indicated he would not automatically vote for life imprisonment. In his voir dire examination, however, R. J. stated he was biased against the death penalty and would not be able to listen to all the evidence in the penalty phase with an open mind and return a verdict of death. The trial court granted the prosecutor's for-cause challenge to R. J., concluding his ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror was substantially impaired due to his strong beliefs in opposition to the death penalty. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that R.J. held views that would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror. ( People v. Schmeck, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 262, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397, 118 P.3d 451.) Even if his statements are considered conflicting or equivocal, the trial court's determination of each juror's true state of mind is binding on us. ( Ibid. )
In his written questionnaire, R. A. expressed equivocal views about the death penalty. During the trial court's voir dire, R. A. stated that his feelings in opposition to capital punishment would not affect his judgment, and that he was capable of keeping an open mind in order to impose a just punishment. But during defense counsel's questioning, R. A. observed that he did not think he was ready to pass judgment in a capital case. In response to the prosecutor's voir dire, R. A. stated he would not impose the death penalty on a first time murderer with special circumstances. He did observe that if a murderer were to kill again after having been given a chance to rehabilitate, the death penalty might be appropriate. The prosecutor challenged R. A. for cause because he apparently would not impose death on first time murderers. The court granted the prosecutor's challenge We find that the record supports the court's conclusion that R. A.'s views would prevent or substantially impair his ability to perform his juror duties. ( Schmeck, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 262, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 397,118 P.3d 451.)