Opinion ID: 2586281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motion for Individual and Sequestered Juror Voir Dire

Text: Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for individual and sequestered juror voir dire, and thus violated his right to trial by an impartial jury and to due process of law under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As we explain, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying his motion. Alvarado filed an in limine motion, in which defendant joined, seeking individual and sequestered juror voir dire. The trial court denied the motion, but left open the possibility of individual and sequestered voir dire for particular jurors on a showing of good cause. Subsequently, the court stated it intended to call 12 prospective jurors at A time for voir dire, followed by discussion of challenges for cause outside the jurors' presence. Defendant's trial counsel stated he had no objection to the court's proposed jury selection procedures. As an initial matter, the People contend that counsel's acquiescence in the trial court's proposed jury selection process bars defendant's claim concerning individual and sequestered voir dire. But the parties stipulated that when the trial court made a ruling on an in limine motion, the losing party was not required to restate the objection in order to preserve it for appellate purposes (assuming that no evidence later presented changed the basis of the trial court's ruling). Defendant therefore did not forfeit his contention. Defendant's claim fails on the merits, however, because, as defendant concedes, Code of Civil Procedure section 223, enacted as part of Proposition 115, abrogated the former individual voir dire procedure directed by Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1, 80, 168 Cal.Rptr. 128, 616 P.2d 1301. ( People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 713, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46, citing Covarrubias v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1171, 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 91.) Defendant submits that Covarrubias was wrongly decided, and apparently invites us to reconsider the issue. We decline to do so. ( People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 512, 21 Cal. Rptr.3d 575, 101 P.3d 478.)