Opinion ID: 2625366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements of Prospective Juror Paul N.

Text: During voir dire, and in the presence of 10 of the 12 jurors who ultimately were selected for defendant's trial, the prosecutor questioned Prospective Juror Paul N. about the alcohol and drug rehabilitation facility he managed. Mr. N. described himself as a recovering substance abuser who had been in continual contact with alcoholics and drug addicts during his 11-year tenure, and claimed he had treated nearly 500 clients, approximately 120 successfully. Mr. N. agreed, without defense objection, that in general his clients when they are intoxicated, realize what's going on. Over a subsequent defense objection that the prosecutor was making Mr. N. his expert witness, Mr. N. was also permitted to confirm that people with alcohol problems sometimes make excuses for themselves, by thinking they are going to do one thing and yet end[ing] up doing another and go[ing] back to drinking. Defendant now characterizes Mr. N.'s testimony as saying that persons such as defendant with alcohol problems can and do plan their actions, although they may not always follow through to carry out their plans. He thus expressed an opinion as an `expert' on a principal issue in [defendant's] case, i.e., whether [defendant] committed a planned intentional killing despite his claimed intoxication. In defendant's view, the trial court should have conducted further voir dire to determine whether the panel had become infected by Mr. N.'s statements. Defendant claims the error violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to confrontation and an impartial jury. (See Mach v. Stewart (9th Cir.1998) 137 F.3d 630, 633 [prospective juror in sex abuse case claimed expertise in the area and stated she had never seen a case in which the child victim's abuse claims ultimately were not borne out].) Contrary to defendant's characterization, a fair reading of the record discloses that Mr. N.'s comments primarily concerned a substance abuser's tendency to backslide despite his good intentions, and not to his ability to plan or premeditate a crime while intoxicated. Although Mr. N. also agreed that generally intoxicated persons realize what's going on, defendant failed to object to the prosecutor's question or defendant's response, which in any event was too broad and indefinite to be viewed as referring to defendant's ability to plan or premeditate a crime. Accordingly, we find no error in failing to conduct additional voir dire. That being so, we need not pass on the Attorney General's arguments that defendant waived the claim of error by (1) failing to request further voir dire questions or move to quash the venire, and (2) failing to exhaust his peremptory challenges.