Opinion ID: 1386274
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion as to Guilt Phase Includables

Text: (2) (See fn. 2.) Prior to the commencement of jury selection, defendant moved the trial court for an order to govern the process of California death qualification, to the following effect: (1) not to exclude guilt phase includables at that phase for cause for actual bias; and (2) to prohibit the People from attempting to exclude such persons on that basis. [2] He claimed that such exclusion violates, among other provisions, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 16, of the California Constitution  including, as relevant here, the guaranties of trial by an impartial jury and trial by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. The trial court denied the motion. It rested its decision, in pertinent part, on a conclusion that the law did not support the position that defendant had taken. (3) Defendant contends that the trial court's ruling was erroneous. We disagree. The exclusion through California death qualification of guilt phase includables does not offend the Sixth Amendment or article I, section 16, as to the guaranty of trial by a jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community. (E.g., People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal.3d 329, 342-353 [197 Cal. Rptr. 803, 673 P.2d 680] (plur. opn.); id. at pp. 374-375 (conc. opn. of Kaus, J.); People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 948-949 [248 Cal. Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917]; see, e.g., People v. Warren (1988) 45 Cal.3d 471, 479 [247 Cal. Rptr. 172, 754 P.2d] [adhering to Fields ]; see also Lockhart v. McCree (1986) 476 U.S. 162, 173-177 [90 L.Ed.2d 137, 147-150, 106 S.Ct. 1758] [dealing solely with the federal constitutional right].) Neither does such exclusion offend the Sixth Amendment or article I, section 16, as to the guaranty of trial by an impartial jury. (E.g., People v. Melton (1988) 44 Cal.3d 713, 732 [244 Cal. Rptr. 867, 750 P.2d 741] [impliedly dealing with both federal and state constitutional rights]; People v. Hamilton (1988) 46 Cal.3d 123, 136 [249 Cal. Rptr. 320, 756 P.2d 1348] [same]; see also Lockhart v. McCree, supra, 476 U.S. at pp. 177-184 [dealing solely with the federal constitutional right].) Defendant asks us to revisit these questions. We decline to do so. To the extent that he urges departure from precedent laid down by the United States Supreme Court or by this court, his request is refused: we must follow the former and will follow the latter. [3]