Opinion ID: 1277356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Trial Court Deprived Defendant of His Right to a Fair and Impartial Jury by Failing in its Sua Sponte Duty to Examine Jurors for Bias and Prejudice

Text: Defendant contends the trial court failed in its duty to conduct an adequate inquiry into potential jurors' biases and prejudices. (Former § 1078; [10] see also People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal.3d 815, 828, 106 Cal.Rptr. 369, 506 P.2d 193 [the dual purpose of section 1078 conferred not only a right of counsel to reasonable examination of prospective jurors, but also a duty upon the trial court to select an impartial jury].) In support of his contention, he cites the trial court's failure to ask certain questions following responses given on voir dire by Deborah Wallen and Oran Pentz, each of whom ultimately sat as jurors on the jury that tried defendant's case. a. Deborah Wallen Juror Deborah Wallen was involved in an incident that occurred in 1978, in which Wallen  then 21 or 22 years of age  was followed by a man while she was driving with her young son. The man flashed his lights, and Wallen drove to the side of the road. There, the man told her that if she did not open her door, he would shoot her. Wallen escaped by driving away at high speed. When the man subsequently was tried for raping another woman, Wallen testified at his trial regarding the incident in which the man had pursued her. Defendant contends the trial court inadequately examined Wallen regarding the 1978 incident. Our review of the record, however, reveals that such examination was unnecessary in view of Wallen's notation of the incident on the juror questionnaire, and her responses to questions posed by the prosecutor and defense counsel. In his voir dire of Wallen, defense counsel thoroughly inquired as to this matter. During that inquiry, Wallen indicated that she knew little regarding the rape charge that had been filed against the man, that the 1978 incident would not bother her if she sat on the jury in the present case, and that the matter had been a long time ago. Defense counsel refrained from challenging Wallen for cause. In light of Wallen's responses, we fail to perceive a deficiency on the part of the trial court, or defense counsel, in refraining from asking additional questions. b. Oran Pentz Juror Oran Pentz indicated on his juror questionnaire that (1) his brothers-in-law was employed as a policeman by the City of Costa Mesa, (2) he had followed media accounts of a different case involving the shooting of a woman married to one of his friends, and (3) he had read newspaper accounts of the Diane Harper killing. [11] Pentz discussed these matters during the voir dire examination, stating that he found the newspaper account pretty much convincing, adding that he would hope [he] wouldn't consider the article should evidence be introduced at trial that varied from the newspaper account. Defendant contends that the trial court failed to inquire into these clearly prejudicial statements. Although defendant is correct that the trial court did not make such an inquiry, defendant's assertion is a misleading one, because the prosecutor and defense counsel thoroughly questioned Pentz (who eventually became the jury's foreperson) as to the matters noted. In response to defense counsel's inquiries, Pentz stated that he would use the same standard for credibility in weighing a police officer's testimony that he would use for anyone else's testimony, and that he was neither biased nor prejudiced in evaluating testimony offered by a police officer. In response to a jury questionnaire inquiry asking Pentz whether the newspaper account led him to favor the prosecution or the defense, Pentz stated neither, adding, I have not heard the whole story and I do not know if the person in custody did this. On voir dire, defense counsel asked whether Pentz could in fact listen to the facts that are presented, the evidence that is presented in this case and make your decision solely on that evidence and be fair to both sides as concerning the penalty. Pentz responded affirmatively. Defense counsel refrained from challenging Pentz for cause. In light of Pentz's responses, we fail to perceive a deficiency on the part of the trial court in refraining from asking additional questions. (Cf. People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1090, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659 [holding that the trial court should have sustained a defense challenge for cause where a prospective juror expressed doubts regarding his own impartiality].) [12]