Opinion ID: 1172635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Reopen Jury Voir Dire Prior to Penalty Phase

Text: (36) After the guilt phase of his trial had concluded, but before the beginning of the penalty phase, defendant moved to reopen voir dire of the jury, pursuant to section 190.4, subdivision (c) (section 190.4(c)). That statute provides [i]f the trier of fact which convicted the defendant of a crime for which he may be subject to the death penalty was a jury, the same jury shall consider ... the truth of any special circumstances which may be alleged, and the penalty to be applied, unless for good cause shown the court discharges that jury in which case a new jury shall be drawn. The trial court denied defendant's motion, observing [t]he only ground that you base your opinion on is that they came in with a verdict within an hour and 45 minutes, and I will submit that is probably a product of the strength of the People's case rather than any jury misconduct. Defendant contends the denial of his motion to reopen voir dire was prejudicial error. He argues that the jury's having deliberated less than two hours after a long trial involving extensive exhibits constitutes reason enough to justify a voir dire of the jury to determine if good cause exists to impanel a new jury for the penalty phase. Defendant's argument lacks merit. Voir dire is not to be reopened on speculation that good cause to impanel a new jury may thereby be discovered; rather, a showing of good cause is a prerequisite to reopening. ( People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 846 [9 Cal. Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249].) Section 190.4(c) reflects the long-standing legislative preference for a single jury to determine both guilt and penalty. ( People v. Fauber, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 845.) Defendant's mere speculation that his jury cut short its deliberations out of prejudice does not establish good cause for a departure from that preference. Good cause is established only by facts which `appear in the record as a demonstrable reality' ( People v. Gates (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1168, 1199 [240 Cal. Rptr. 666, 743 P.2d 301]), and defendant cites to none. Thus, no error appears.