Opinion ID: 2587254
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror Mc.[6]

Text: Questioned by the defense with regard to which circumstances she believed justified imposition of the death penalty, Prospective Juror Mc. stated initially that she would impose that punishment for any murder, including a murder that resulted from a quarrel or fight. Questioned further by the prosecution, Prospective Juror Mc. indicated that she would weigh the circumstances, and the penalty would depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. The trial court described a hypothetical situation involving substantial circumstances in aggravation and in mitigation. Prospective Juror Mc. indicated that she could weigh the circumstances in deciding the penalty. Given a hypothetical example of a killing involving provocation, she stated it was possible that a life sentence would be appropriate. It is apparent that Prospective Juror Mc.'s responses originally reflected her views on the appropriate punishment when confronted with the general offense of murder. When given more specific examples, her views were not inflexible, but reflected a willingness to consider the particular circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty in a specific case. She did not express views indicative of an unalterable preference in favor of the death penalty, such that her protestation that she would follow the law would not rehabilitate her. ( People v. Crittenden, supra, 9 Cal.4th 83, 123, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 474, 885 P.2d 887; cf. Morgan v. Illinois (1992) 504 U.S. 719, 733-736, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492.) Because her responses were conflicting, the trial court's determination as to her true state of mind is binding upon this court. ( People v. Jenkins, supra, 22 Cal.4th 900, 987, 95 Cal. Rptr.2d 377, 997 P.2d 1044.)