Opinion ID: 844217
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Randy J.

Text: Defendant contends that Prospective Juror Randy J. was erroneously excused because his views on the death penalty would not prevent him from following the law. Defendant points to the circumstances that Randy J. stated he could follow the law if he felt the death penalty were appropriate and that he could impose the death penalty if a person murdered 50 people. Even if a prospective juror expresses a willingness to follow the law, he or she may be excused under Witt if other responses furnished substantial evidence of [his or] her inability to conscientiously consider a death verdict. ( People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1114-1115 [74 Cal.Rptr.2d 121, 954 P.2d 384] [upholding dismissal of juror even though some of her responses reflected a willingness to follow the law and the court's instructions].) Randy J.'s responses to voir dire, taken as a whole, clearly support the trial court's conclusion that his views concerning the death penalty would prohibit him from doing his job properly. Asked whether he could see himself choosing the death penalty in an appropriate case, he stated I cannot choose the death penalty.... Because it's something I have to live with .... He stated that he would follow the law and the court's instructions, but when asked whether he could impose death he responded, I would say not. Asked whether he could impose the death penalty if he thought the facts warranted it, he said, No, explaining, Because it's a tough decision. Asked whether there was a circumstance in which he could make that decision, he replied, Probably if [the defendant] murdered 50 people. Randy J. indicated that he could probably follow the court's instructions and when asked whether he could impose the death penalty if he felt it was appropriate he responded, If I felt that way. When asked whether the death penalty goes against his moral or religious beliefs, however, he responded, It goes against everything I stand for. I can't live with myself putting [a] death sentence on somebody and living with that. When asked finally whether he could see himself coming in after the deliberations and stating in open court that the defendant should die he stated, I don't think I'm the man for it. That the prospective juror might possibly have been able to overcome his views in a case involving 50 victims does not establish that he could conscientiously consider the death penalty in a case like the present one. (See People v. Roybal (1998) 19 Cal.4th 481, 519 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 487, 966 P.2d 521] [upholding dismissal of juror in a case involving a single victim, even though juror might have been able to impose a death sentence in a case involving multiple victims].) The trial court did not err in concluding that Randy J.'s views on the death penalty would substantially impair his ability to perform the duties of a juror.