Opinion ID: 2544661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation on Peremptory Challenges

Text: The trial court decided to have six alternate jurors in addition to the 12 regular jurors sworn to try the case. The court gave each side six peremptory challenges to exercise against the six alternate jurors. The court required that the alternate jurors be selected individually, rather than collectively, however, and that each party exercise only one peremptory challenge as to each alternate juror position. Defendant contends that in so limiting the exercise of peremptory challenges to alternate jurors, the trial court erred under state law, and that this state law error in turn resulted in a deprivation of his rights under the federal Constitution to an unbiased jury and to due process of law (U.S. Const., 6th & 14th Amends.). As here relevant, section 1089 provides: [T]he prosecution and the defendant shall each be entitled to as many peremptory challenges to such alternate jurors as there are alternate jurors called. Defendant reads this provision as requiring that peremptory challenges be exercised against alternate jurors unencumbered by any restriction to a particular seat or position. Whatever the merits of this construction may be, defendant's objection comes too late because [objections to the jury selection process must be made when the selection occurs. ( People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 23, 23 Cal. Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) Because defendant did not object to the per seat limitation before jury impanelment was completed, the issue is not preserved for appellate review.