Opinion ID: 2594572
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Loss of Certain Prospective Jurors' Questionnaires

Text: Defendant claims that his constitutional right to a meaningful review of his conviction and sentence has been infringed by the loss of the bulk of prospective juror questionnaires. The questionnaires of the seated jurors and alternates were preserved, but almost all others have been lost. As a general matter, we disagree. We addressed, and rejected, a similar claim in People v. Alvarez, supra, 14 Cal.4th 155, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365, where we said: [Defendant maintains that his Wheeler [-] Batson claim must be resolved in his favor on the ground that the record on appeal is not adequate to permit meaningful review. The deficiency of which he complains is the absence of certain questionnaires, which were completed by prospective jurors, then lodged with the superior court, subsequently lost by its clerk's office, and finally determined by the superior court to be beyond reconstruction. A criminal defendant is indeed entitled to a record on appeal that is adequate to permit meaningful review. That is true under California law. [Citation.] It is true as well under the United States Constitutionunder the Fourteenth Amendment generally, and under the Eighth Amendment specifically when a sentence of death is involved. [Citation.] The record on appeal is inadequate, however, only if the complained-of deficiency is prejudicial to the defendant's ability to prosecute his appeal. ( Id. at p. 196, fn. 8, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 926 P.2d 365.) With regard to the prospective jurors whose questionnaires were lost but who are not identified by defendant as the subject of Wheeler challenges: this court will not in any event compare the views of those jurors excused by peremptory challenges with those who were not excused on that basis. ( People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1197, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254; cf. id. at pp. 1248-1249, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254 (cone. opn. of Mosk, J.) [urging a contrary approach].) Under this court's precedent, therefore, the loss of the questionnaires could not have prejudiced him. With regard to the prospective jurors whose questionnaires were lost and who were the subject of Wheeler challenges, we have already explained that the record is sufficiently complete for us to be able to conclude that they were not challenged and excused on the basis of forbidden group bias. Thus, even if there was federal error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt ( Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705), and under state law any error also was harmless ( People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243).