Opinion ID: 1121458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Witt Contentions

Text: The trial court excused for cause prospective jurors Louis Rinaldi and Anna Kytle. Defendant challenges these rulings. After reviewing the voir dire of these prospective witnesses, we find no error. (43) In deciding whether to excuse a potential juror for cause, the trial court must determine whether the juror's views [on the death penalty] would `prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.' ( Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852, 105 S.Ct. 844], fn. omitted, quoting Adams v. Texas (1980) 448 U.S. 38, 45 [65 L.Ed.2d 581, 589-590, 100 S.Ct. 2521]; see also Morgan v. Illinois (1992) 504 U.S. ___ [119 L.Ed.2d 492, 502, 112 S.Ct. 2222]; People v. Ghent (1987) 43 Cal.3d 739, 767 [239 Cal. Rptr. 82, 739 P.2d 1250] [adopting same standard for state constitutional right].) On appeal, we determine whether the trial court's decision is supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Ashmus, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 962; People v. Hardy, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 129.) [I]f the prospective juror's responses are equivocal, i.e., capable of multiple inferences, or conflicting, the trial court's determination of that juror's state of mind is binding. ( People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 809 [281 Cal. Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865]; accord, People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1063 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 526, 839 P.2d 1035].) (44) The record supports the trial court's excusal of these jurors for cause. Prospective juror Kytle repeatedly responded to questions during voir dire with answers such as the following: That just means that I don't think I could vote for the death penalty. I just don't believe I could. She also stated: Well, I don't feel that I have the right to sentence anybody to death. Prospective juror Rinaldi initially agreed with the trial court's assessment of his views that he would automatically vote for life without the possibility of parole. Under strenuous questioning from defense counsel, Rinaldi stated that, if the aggravating circumstances were so dire or so heinous, there was a possibility that he might vote for the death penalty. Rinaldi stated throughout voir dire, however, that it would be very difficult for him to vote for the death penalty. He stated again later [t]hat if there is any alternative to death for the individual I would take that alternative. These responses and others like them amply supported the trial court's decisions. ( People v. Payton, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1063; People v. Cooper, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 809.)