Opinion ID: 1127405
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Court-conducted Voir Dire

Text: (23) Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in the jury selection process because its voir dire questioning omitted the July 26, 1988, newspaper article in the Bakersfield Californian that focused on the disbarment proceedings pending against defense counsel Toton. The article also mentioned that Toton had been appointed to represent admitted triple killer Ted Sanchez and that in an unusual move, [Toton] waived a jury trial this month, cutting out a jury-selection process that could have taken months. Even though cocounsel Frank conducted the penalty phase defense, defendant complains that the court's failure to question the prospective jurors specifically on the contents of the article about Toton prejudiced the jury and made it unable to render a fair and impartial verdict in violation of his right to a fair and impartial jury under the due process and jury trial provisions of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., Amends. VI, XIV; Cal. Const. art. I, § 16.) Although defendant mentions the fact that neither defense counsel nor the district attorney questioned the jury about the article, the thrust of defendant's argument is that the trial court did not even begin to cover a subject bearing on the impartiality of the jury, and that the lack of specific inquiry into the effect of any knowledge of Toton's pending disbarment on the potential jurors made it impossible to conclude that [defendant's] penalty jury was fair and impartial. [6] Defendant's argument is unconvincing. First, it is evident from the record that defendant failed to preserve his claim of improper voir dire by objecting to the court's questioning during trial. ( People v. Viscotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 48 [5 Cal. Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388].) On the merits, our review of the record shows the trial court's voir dire adequately insured an impartial jury, without unnecessarily exposing the jury to the very information defendant found could prejudice his case. In People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215 [24 Cal. Rptr.2d 421, 861 P.2d 1107] (hereafter Wash ) we held that although the trial court has considerable discretion in the voir dire process, the court must allow counsel to ask questions designed to assist counsel in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( Id., at p. 253; see also People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392, 407 [174 Cal. Rptr. 317, 628 P.2d 869].) The trial court complied with its obligation under Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th 215, to assist counsel and to ensure a fair and impartial jury by requiring the 201 prospective jurors to fill out a one-page questionnaire asking the panel members whether they had ever heard of the case, and if so, to name their source. (See People v. Chaney (1991) 234 Cal. App.3d 853, 860 [286 Cal. Rptr. 79] [information must be extracted from jurors to assess their impartiality].) Of the jurors eventually selected to serve, eight told the court they had never heard of defendant's case, were not familiar with counsel, and either did not subscribe to or did not read on a consistent basis the Bakersfield Californian. In addition, pursuant to further questioning by the court, four of these jurors indicated they did not believe everything they read in the newspaper. Two other jurors who acknowledged they read the Bakersfield Californian observed that they had never heard of defendant's case. Two of the twelve jurors selected had prior knowledge of defendant's case, but their voir dire responses clearly indicated that their exposure to the newspaper articles about defendant's case was limited to an awareness of the general facts and circumstances of the Bocanegra and Tatman murders. Their knowledge of the case did not include any specific information regarding Toton's pending disbarment. Thus, it appears that the trial court acted well within its discretion in proposing the general question of the jurors' knowledge of Toton's pending disbarment without unnecessarily educating the jury about that matter. The trial court's strategy thus avoided informing the jury of Toton's troubles, while assuring defendant a fair and impartial jury. ( Wash, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 254.) Under these facts, we find the trial court did not err in limiting voir dire to general questions concerning pretrial publicity. (See Mu'Min v. Virginia (1991) 500 U.S. 415, 428 [114 L.Ed.2d 493, 507-508, 111 S.Ct. 1899] [findings of trial judge on issue of juror impartiality should be upheld absent manifest error].)