Opinion ID: 1113193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Failure to challenge and excuse Juror Binns.

Text: (7) During voir dire, Patricia Binns, who sat on the jury, expressed the adamant view that if you make the choice to use [drugs] ..., then you're totally responsible for that choice you made. Because of this statement, defendant claims his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to exercise a peremptory challenge against Binns. The record does not support his contention. A claim of ineffective assistance will not be accepted on direct appeal unless the appellate record makes clear that the challenged act or omission was a mistake beyond the range of reasonable competence. (E.g., People v. Wilson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 926, 936 [13 Cal. Rptr.2d 259, 838 P.2d 1212]; People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412, 426-427 [152 Cal. Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859, 2 A.L.R.4th 1].) Because the use of peremptory challenges is inherently subjective and intuitive, an appellate record will rarely disclose reversible incompetence in this process. The overall tenor of Binns's voir dire established her ability and desire to be fair on the issue of penalty. She professed that she could follow the law, go either way based on the guidelines given to her, evaluate [the evidence] and make a choice, judge expert psychiatric evidence, and use her common sense. While she stated that persons were responsible for the consequences of their choice to use drugs, she never indicated that a defendant's voluntary drug ingestion would prevent her from choosing life without parole, rather than death, as the appropriate punishment for a capital crime. Under these circumstances, the record discloses no manifest incompetence in counsel's decision to retain Binns, which was presumably based on his overall impression of her personality and values. Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance must be dismissed.