Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prospective Juror Ni.

Text: In response to the standard Hovey questions, this prospective juror told the court that she believed in the death penalty and would like to see it applied more often but was not certain whether personally she could vote for it. Asked by the prosecutor to state whether she could look defendant in the eye and tell him she had voted for death, she did not know whether she could carry out that responsibility. Asked whether she could carry out her duty as a juror in this case, Prospective Juror Ni. did not believe she could, would not be good on the jury at all, and would have a problem being impartial. Despite believing in the death penalty, she could not put someone to death. Although both prosecution and defense counsel passed for cause, on its own motion the trial court excused this juror on the basis that she was very confused and believed in the death penalty without being able to apply it herself. The trial court properly excused the prospective juror on the basis that she could not personally impose the death penalty despite viewing it as an appropriate punishment. ( People v. Rodngues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1147, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1 & fns. 51 & 52; People v. Visciotti (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1, 44-6, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 495, 825 P.2d 388.)