Opinion ID: 1203248
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Joint Peremptory Challenges

Text: (1) Defendant argues that the application to his trial of former sections 1070 and 1070.5 (see now Code Civ. Proc., ง 231, subd. (a)) violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, an impartial jury, and a reliable determination of penalty. These statutory provisions allotted to each defendant 5 separate peremptory challenges and 26 peremptory challenges to exercise jointly with his codefendant, but allotted to the prosecution 36 unrestricted challenges. Respondent claims that defendant's motion raising this issue in the trial court was premature, and that in any case there was no possibility of prejudice because defendant did not exhaust his peremptory challenges or object to the jury as constituted. Even if the claim is properly before us, we reject it on the merits, as we have done before. ( People v. Webster (1991) 54 Cal.3d 411, 439 [285 Cal. Rptr. 31, 814 P.2d 1273]; People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194, 1222-1223 [255 Cal. Rptr. 569, 767 P.2d 1047]; People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1004-1007 [248 Cal. Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017].) We decline to reopen the question.