Opinion ID: 4103812
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Kusum P.

Text: Prospective Juror Kusum P. was a 34-year-old Indian-American who worked as a maintenance administrator for Pacific Bell. Regarding her views on the death penalty, she stated: ―I don‘t believe that [the] death penalty is good. I won‘t go for that,‖ and would ―instead give some punishment that will change other people.‖ She held that opinion, ―[b]ecause if one [person] got [the] death penalty, it‘s not going to change other people[] committing crimes,‖ and ―[i]t‘s not going to teach [a] lesson.‖ In response to another question, she opined that the death penalty served no purpose. When asked whether someone who intentionally kills more than one person should always, or never, receive the death penalty, she answered paradoxically that she ―[a]gree[d] somewhat‖ to both questions. During follow-up voir dire, Kusum P. stated she felt the death penalty had no place in our society, that she could not personally vote for it ―in any kind of case,‖ and she could not personally ―send somebody to the gas chamber and execute them.‖ Pressed on the point, she admitted she did not know whether she could vote for death in the ―most heinous, brutal type of killing,‖ and that ―maybe‖ she could in a case in which ―five small children were tortured to death.‖ She would not vote not guilty just to avoid a penalty trial, or vote for a special circumstance just to get to a penalty trial. She would not always vote for death or for life without regard for the facts of the case. She reiterated the views expressed in her questionnaire, saying the death penalty does not deter others from committing crimes. Asked by the prosecutor if she could personally send someone to their death, she first said ―no,‖ then said: ―It depends. When I go to after all the facts [sic], like what happened and everything, then I might change my mind, but it‘s like it depends on what happened and what were the circumstance[s].‖ But then asked whether, ―if the circumstances were really 29 terrible, could you actually look at this individual, and say it‘s my decision that you should die?‖ she answered, ―No.‖ The prosecutor challenged Kusum P. for cause and the trial court granted it, explaining: ―The court finds based on the answers to the questionnaire, answers in court, she‘s substantially impaired.‖ As the record demonstrates, Prospective Juror Kusum P. had generally strong feelings against the death penalty. Although she was never asked expressly whether she could set them aside and follow the law, her answers provided substantial evidence that she could not fairly consider both sides. (People v. Merriman (2014) 60 Cal.4th 1, 53.) That she gave contradictory answers at times illustrates the high court‘s observation that ―many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made ‗unmistakably clear‘; these veniremen may not know how they will react when faced with imposing the death sentence, or may be unable to articulate, or may wish to hide their true feelings. Despite this lack of clarity in the printed record, however, there will be situations where the trial judge is left with the definite impression that a prospective juror would be unable to faithfully and impartially apply the law.‖ (Witt, supra, 469 U.S. at pp. 424–426, fn. omitted.) As with the other challenged jurors, the trial court fairly determined Kusum P.‘s true state of mind and, as it is supported by substantial evidence, we defer to that decision. (People v. Gonzales and Soliz, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 316.)