Opinion ID: 1239150
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Excusal for cause of prospective jurors

Text: (23a) Defendant contends that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury because, following the prosecutor's challenge for cause and defense objection, the trial court excused two prospective jurors, Carolyn Stewart and Glen McCanlies, on the basis of their statements indicating they would be unable to apply the death penalty law. (24) Whether the contention is, as in the present case, that the trial court erred in excluding prospective jurors who exhibited an anti-death bias, or erred in failing to exclude prospective jurors who exhibited a pro-death bias, the same standard has been held to apply. ( People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83, 121; People v. Pride (1992) 3 Cal.4th 195, 227-228 [10 Cal. Rptr.2d 636, 833 P.2d 643]; People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 456 [6 Cal. Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388].) A juror may be challenged for cause based upon his or her views concerning capital punishment only if those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties as defined by the court's instructions and the juror's oath. ( Morgan v. Illinois (1992) 504 U.S. 719, 728 [112 S.Ct. 2222, 2229, 119 L.Ed.2d 492]; Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412, 424 [105 S.Ct. 844, 852, 83 L.Ed.2d 841]; see Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510 [88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776]; People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83, 120-121; People v. Payton (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1062-1063 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 526, 839 P.2d 1035]; People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th 408, 456.) More specifically, the determinant is `whether the juror's views about capital punishment would prevent or impair the juror's ability to return a verdict of death in the case before the juror. ' ( People v. Hill (1992) 3 Cal.4th 959, 1003 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 475, 839 P.2d 984], original italics.) If the prospective juror's responses to voir dire questions are conflicting or equivocal, the trial court's determination of the juror's true state of mind is binding upon the reviewing court. ( People v. Mayfield, supra, 14 Cal.4th 668, 727; People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1279; People v. Hill, supra, 3 Cal.4th 959, 1004; People v. Mincey, supra, 2 Cal.4th 408, 456-457.) (23b) In the present case, prospective juror Stewart, asked by the court during voir dire examination whether she was in favor of, opposed to, or neutral regarding the death penalty, responded that it would be very hard to take someone else's life in her own hands. Asked whether she automatically would vote against a verdict of death regardless of the evidence, she responded that she was not sure, but was even less in favor of that penalty than at the time she had completed the juror questionnaire. Asked whether, if she concluded that the circumstances warranted the death penalty, she could return to the courtroom, look defendant in the eye and indicate her vote in favor of the death penalty, she said, I rather doubt it. Asked to explain why, she indicated she did not feel that she had a right to take another person's life. Asked to conceive of any case in which she could envision voting for death, she explained that there might be an offense so obnoxious that she could bring herself to do it, perhaps if a child were involved, but could not envision any other type of case. When asked whether she could inform defendant that she had voted for a verdict of death, she indicated Perhaps, yes. Questioned by defense counsel how she would vote on the death penalty as a member of the electorate, prospective juror Stewart would probably say no. Further queried whether she was not automatically, absolutely in every case opposed but was mostly opposed, she responded affirmatively and indicated that perhaps there were situations in which she could render a death verdict. She stated she would attempt to follow the court's instructions and believed in the law, but would not know until the decision had to be made whether she could render a death verdict. When asked by the prosecutor whether she could look defendant in the eye and sentence him to die in the gas chamber, prospective juror Stewart responded, I really don't know, and stated that she found it very difficult to accept responsibility for the decision to render a death verdict. She indicated that previously she had justified the death penalty as a deterrent but no longer was certain the penalty was a deterrent, and prior to hearing any evidence would be more inclined to vote for life in prison without the possibility of parole. She indicated she would not vote for a verdict other than guilty of first degree murder just in order to avoid facing the question of the death penalty, but did not know whether she could impose the death penalty in the present case. Prospective juror McCanlies indicated in the juror questionnaire, and informed the court, that he was opposed to the death penalty. Questioned by the court as to how strong his feelings were, McCanlies stated he could conceive of imposing the penalty only if that would bring the victim back to life. He stated that his principles were that executing a human being is never justified under any circumstances, regardless of the evidence. McCanlies indicated he would be unable to return to the courtroom and inform defendant that McCanlies had voted for death under any circumstances unless something like espionage were involved. When asked by defense counsel to conceive of circumstances in which he could render a death verdict, McCanlies suggested he could do so in the case of a death commandant, grinding out victims by the thousands on a monthly basis, or where a hired killer performed premeditated mass murder of schoolchildren. He acknowledged that there are circumstances in which a person is so dangerous to society that he or she has to be removed. When questioned whether he could listen to the evidence and consider the death penalty, McCanlies indicated that he did not know. He indicated he would listen to the judge's instructions and follow the law, also stating he would to the very last minute resist imposing the death penalty. We are satisfied that the trial court did not err in granting the prosecutor's challenges for cause to these two prospective jurors. Both jurors expressed views indicative of an unalterable preference against the death penalty. Accordingly, their statements that they would follow the law would not rehabilitate them. ( Morgan v. Illinois, supra, 504 U.S. 719, 734-736 [112 S.Ct. 2222, 2232-2234].) Although both jurors indicated they could impose the death penalty in specified, particularly extreme cases, their hypothetical examples presented more egregious facts than those involved in the present case. (See e.g., People v. Cummings, supra, 4 Cal.4th 1233, 1280-1281 [for-cause excusal proper when juror could impose death penalty in awfully horrendous case but probably would vote automatically for life imprisonment]; People v. Payton, supra, 3 Cal.4th 1050, 1063 [for-cause excusal proper when juror would vote automatically for life imprisonment but allowed for death penalty `in the most aggravated case you can imagine'].) Their examples were not analogous to the circumstances of the murders at issue in the proceedings before them. (See People v. Hill, supra, 3 Cal.4th 959, 1003.) Even though to some extent the responses of both prospective jurors, and Stewart's responses in particular, were conflicting and ambiguous, as indicated above the trial court's determinations as to the jurors' true state of mind, based upon factors such as their demeanor, is binding upon this court. Their statements justified a finding that each would vote automatically against the death penalty regardless of the evidence in this case. The trial court correctly determined that each juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as defined by his or her oath as a juror and the instructions given by the court. ( Wainwright v. Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412, 424 [105 S.Ct. 844, 852].)