Opinion ID: 2581010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims related to Code of Civil Procedure, section 223

Text: Code of Civil Procedure section 223, as amended by section 7 of Proposition 115 (approved by the electorate effective June 6, 1990), provided at the time of trial in this matter: In a criminal case, the court shall conduct the examination of prospective jurors. However, the court may permit the parties, upon a showing of good cause, to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper, or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors upon such a showing, such additional questions by the parties as it deems proper. Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death cases.[ [18] ] [¶] Examination of prospective jurors shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause. [¶] The trial court's exercise of its discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted shall not cause any conviction to be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California Constitution. Defendant argues that the trial court's use of a juror questionnaire violated Code of Civil Procedure section 223, because the prospective jurors who completed the questionnaire did not do so in the presence of [the] other [prospective] jurors. In People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15 ( Earp ), however, we characterized the use of such questionnaires as being [ c ] onsistent with  Code of Civil Procedure section 223. ( Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 851, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15, italics added.) [19] As noted, Code of Civil Procedure section 223 requires that voir dire be conducted in the presence of all other prospective jurors where practicable. It would be neither practicable nor particularly useful to require that prospective jurors provide answers to juror questionnaires in the presence of other jurors. As we implied in Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th 826, 851, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15, a trial court retains discretion to employ juror questionnaires as an aspect of the jury selection process, and the trial court properly did so in this case, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 223. Defendant also argues that the actual juror questionnaire employed in this case violated Code of Civil Procedure section 223, because it included questions that were not in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause. The questionnaire asked each prospective juror to provide information concerning the prospective juror's full name, and other names used; marital status; employment status; employment status of household members and children; education and subjects of study; education and areas of study of household members; military service; health problems; medication taken; connections with law enforcement; unpleasant or pleasant experiences with law enforcement; experience with victimization by crime; arrests for or commission of crimes; opinions formed concerning prosecuting or defense counsel; membership in anticrime organizations; training in the law; prior jury or grand jury service; prior knowledge of the case or persons involved in the case; willingness to follow the court's instructions; exposure to media coverage; attitudes toward gun possession; and (as described ante, pt. II.A) attitudes concerning the death penalty. The trial court below concluded that these and similar questions were in aid of discovering bases for challenges for cause, in that they help to shed more light on the question of whether they are vulnerable to a challenge for cause. We agree and find no error. Finally, defendant asserts that use of the questionnaire denied him his right to an impartial jury, because the prosecution thereby obtained information upon which to base its peremptory challenges. Of course, the questionnaire answers also provided defense counsel with information upon which to base his own peremptory challenges. We perceive no denial of defendant's right to an impartial jury on this ground. (See Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th 826, 853, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 857, 978 P.2d 15 [the trial court's voir dire procedure fully satisfied the requirements of the state and federal Constitutions that a fair and impartial jury determine questions of guilt and penalty].) Nor do we perceive any miscarriage of justice on this ground. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 223, par. 3.)