Opinion ID: 2517841
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Additional Peremptory Challenge

Text: After the voir dire of Prospective Juror D.N., whom neither side challenged for cause, the prosecutor accepted the jury panel as constituted. At a sidebar conference, defense counsel expressed dissatisfaction with the 12 that are here. Defense counsel acknowledged that he had exhausted all 20 peremptory challenges allotted by statute. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 231, subd. (a).) However, citing the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, counsel sought an additional peremptory challenge to compensate for the one used against K.E., whom he had unsuccessfully challenged for cause. However, the trial court saw no reason to exercise its discretion in favor of granting the request. (See People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1087-1088, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659.) The court suggested that the defense had used several peremptory challenges against persons who presented no problem at all in terms of being fair and impartial. According to the court, the defense appeared to have exhausted its peremptories in order to preserve arguments for appeal on the challenges for cause. Defendant contends the trial court arbitrarily denied his request for an additional peremptory challenge under state law, and thereby violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and an impartial jury under the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (See Hicks v. Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343, 346, 100 S.Ct. 2227, 65 L.Ed.2d 175.) We reject the claim. To establish a constitutional entitlement to additional peremptory challenges, the defendant must at least show that he is likely to receive an unfair trial before a biased jury if the request is denied. ( People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 231, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643 ( Pride ); accord, Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th 641, 665, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 326, 140 P.3d 657.) Defendant has made no such showing at trial or on appeal. As explained above, the trial court did not erroneously deny defense challenges for cause against either J.C. or K.E. Nor does defendant identify any allegedly biased jurors who sat on his jury. ( Pride, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 231, 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643.) No basis for reversal on this ground appears.