Opinion ID: 1379313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Four Challenges for Pro-death Bias

Text: (19) Defendant claims prejudice from the denial of his challenges for cause of four prospective jurors on the ground they were unequivocally biased in favor of imposing the death penalty on defendant. We have reviewed the record of the voir dire of each of the four prospective jurors. Although all gave conflicting answers regarding their ability to consider both penalty options available to them, all stated at one time or another that they could consider the option of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The trial court denied defendant's challenge for cause as to each. Where equivocal or conflicting responses are elicited, the trial court's determination of the prospective jurors' states of mind is binding on an appellate court. ( People v. Mason (1991) 52 Cal.3d 909, 954 [277 Cal. Rptr. 166, 802 P.2d 950]; People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 103 [270 Cal. Rptr. 817, 793 P.2d 23].) On this record, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, the jurors' views on capital punishment would have prevented or substantially impaired the performance of their duties as jurors in accordance with their instructions and their oath. ( Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852, 105 S.Ct. 844]; People v. Mason, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 953.)