Opinion ID: 1226896
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Separate Guilt and Penalty Juries

Text: Prior to trial, defendant made a motion to impanel separate juries to try the issues of guilt and penalty. (22)(See fn. 6.) He based his request on a claim that the exclusion through California death qualification of guilt phase includables violates a criminal defendant's right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California Constitution. [6] He expressly declined to rely on a claim that the challenged exclusion violates a criminal defendant's right under the same provisions of the federal and state charters to a jury that is impartial  specifically, a panel that is neutral on the question of guilt and hence not conviction prone. The trial court denied the motion. (23) Defendant contends that the trial court's ruling was erroneous. That is not the case. The claim on which defendant relied below is without merit. The exclusion through California death qualification of guilt phase includables does not offend a criminal defendant's right to a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California Constitution. (E.g., People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 342-353 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680] (plur. opn.); id. at pp. 374-375 (conc. opn. of Kaus, J.); People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 948-949 [248 Cal. Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917]; see, e.g., People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 479 [247 Cal. Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d 218] [adhering to Fields ].) Further, the claim on which defendant expressly declined to rely is not preserved for review. As noted, there was no argument that the challenged exclusion offends a criminal defendant's federal and state constitutional rights to an impartial jury. Of course, when an argument was not presented to support a motion, it may not be urged to attack the subsequent ruling. In any event, we have never found the present argument persuasive. (See generally Hovey v. Superior Court, supra, 28 Cal.3d at pp. 8-69.) Our views have not changed.