Opinion ID: 1127349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of defense challenges for cause of two prospective jurors.

Text: (4) During jury selection, defendant challenged for cause prospective jurors Kirstenpfad and Cowie. The trial court denied the challenges, and defendant later employed peremptory challenges to excuse these two individuals from serving on the jury. When the defense accepted the jury, it had not exhausted its peremptory challenges. Defendant now urges that denial of his challenges for cause was reversible error under the federal and state Constitutions ( Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 423-424 [83 L.Ed.2d 841, 851-852, 105 S.Ct. 844]; U.S. Const., 5th, 6th, 8th & 14th Amends; Cal. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 7, subd. (a), 15, 16). In order successfully to claim error in the denial of a challenge for cause of a prospective juror, a defendant on appeal must demonstrate that the ruling affected his or her right to a fair and impartial jury. Because defendant exercised peremptory challenges to remove the two prospective jurors whom he unsuccessfully had challenged for cause, neither of these two prospective jurors possibly could have compromised the impartiality of the jury. Therefore, under Witt he cannot claim constitutional error based upon the trial court's denial of those challenges for cause. ( People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1211 [14 Cal. Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1]; People v. Mason (1991) 52 Cal.3d 909, 954 [277 Cal. Rptr. 166, 802 P.2d 950].) Furthermore, defendant had 11 peremptory challenges remaining when he accepted the jury. Exhaustion of peremptory challenges is a prerequisite to a claim of prejudicial error in the denial of a challenge for cause. ( People v. Johnson, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 1211; People v. Morris (1991) 53 Cal.3d 152, 185 [279 Cal. Rptr. 720, 807 P.2d 949].) [4] For these reasons, we reject defendant's claim that denial of his challenges for cause affected his right to a fair and impartial jury.