Opinion ID: 1127349
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim of Witherspoon error in the excusal of two prospective jurors for cause.

Text: (3) Defendant contends the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel during  Witherspoon  voir dire ( Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510, 522 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 784-785, 88 S.Ct. 1770]) in questioning two prospective jurors after their responses indicated an unwillingness to impose the death penalty. We find no error. During voir dire as to the qualifications of the prospective jurors to serve on a capital case, the trial court determined to ask each prospective juror a set of four standard questions based upon Witherspoon. [3] Defense counsel requested a ruling limiting voir dire, and, in response, the trial court ruled that if a juror's responses to the four questions were appropriate, i.e., did not indicate a basis for excusal for cause, no further voir dire would be permitted, but that if a juror was unclear regarding a question, further inquiry would be permitted. Thereafter, in the course of the voir dire of prospective juror Ahumada, after she stated that because of a conscientious objection she never would vote for death and automatically would vote for life without possibility of parole, regardless of the evidence, defense counsel sought to examine this witness further. The prosecutor asked to approach the bench, and a subsequent discussion ensued outside the presence of the prospective juror. Defense counsel, seeking to justify further inquiry, explained that, by his motion to limit voir dire, he had sought to preclude further inquiry only if a juror answered no to a particular question, but had not intended to preclude further inquiry in the event a juror's response indicated that excusal for cause might be warranted (because of an unwillingness to impose the death penalty). The prosecutor interjected that, if further inquiry were permitted, the prosecution as well as the defense should be permitted to make inquiry. Ultimately the trial court stated it was prepared to allow voir dire by both sides, or, alternatively, would grant the defense motion and preclude voir dire absent an ambiguous response by a juror, offering to defense counsel the choice of these two alternatives. Defense counsel responded, I want to stand on my written motion, whereupon the trial court ruled that it would bar voir dire unless a juror's response was ambiguous. Prospective juror Ahumada thereafter was challenged and excused for cause. Subsequently, prospective juror Carey was excused for cause after answering in the affirmative the first of the three Witherspoon questions, thereby expressing an unwillingness to impose the death penalty under any circumstances. Several days later, the prosecutor informed the court that, upon further reflection, he had determined to withdraw his challenges for cause to the two jurors in question as well as any objection to further efforts by the defense to rehabilitate these jurors by further examination. Prospective jurors Ahumada and Carey (who had been sent to another courtroom) were returned to the courtroom. At that point, however, defense counsel declined to engage in further questioning, and the court affirmed the excusal for cause of these two jurors. Defendant maintains on appeal that, in presenting the two alternatives to defense counsel, the court mischaracterized the defense motion as one to preclude voir dire by either side unless a juror's response was ambiguous; that, accordingly, the court never properly considered the alternative of permitting further inquiry if a juror's response indicated an unwillingness to impose the death penalty, and that the trial court's ruling barring such inquiry was prejudicial error. In light of the circumstance that defense counsel declined to ask further questions of these prospective jurors after being provided the opportunity to do so, however, defendant has waived any right to complain of the trial court's initial restriction of voir dire. Accordingly, we need not, and do not, decide whether the trial court's actions were erroneous in any respect.