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

Heading: Whether Defendant Was Denied His Right to Trial by a Fair and Impartial Jury

Text: Defendant contends the trial court committed several errors during the voir dire examination of potential jurors and during the trial itself, thereby depriving him of his right to trial by a fair and impartial jury. (See U.S. Const., 6th Amend; Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) Specifically, defendant contends the trial court inadequately examined potential jurors for bias and prejudice. He also contends the trial court erred in failing to dismiss one juror for hardship. As we shall explain, defendant's contentions lack merit. Initially, we observe that because defendant failed to challenge the jurors for cause or through the use of the peremptory challenges available to him, he is not entitled to relief on appeal. (See People v. Danielson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 691, 713, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 838 P.2d 729[[I]n light of the fact defendant failed to use his one remaining peremptory challenge ... we need not resolve whether the court erred in failing to excuse [a particular] juror for cause.].) Upon the completion of the jury selection process, defendant had exercised only 14 of his 26 challenges against prospective jurors, and 3 of 4 challenges against prospective alternates. In fact, defendant explicitly acknowledged to the court that he was satisfied with the jury that had been selected. He therefore may not now complain that the jury was comprised of one or more persons unacceptable to him. ( People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 185, 279 Cal.Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949[[A] party's failure to exercise available peremptory challenges indicates relative satisfaction with the unchallenged jurors. Having so indicated in this case, defendant cannot reasonably claim error.].) [8] In addition to this procedural flaw, defendant's contentions on appeal are unpersuasive on the merits. [9]