Court Opinion

ID: 9781336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:31:40.276697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:24.434578
License: Public Domain

*34WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I concur generally in the majority’s reasoning and result. In particular, I agree defendant forfeited his argument that the trial court erred by denying two of his challenges for cause because, although he removed the two prospective jurors using peremptory challenges and subsequently exhausted the number of such challenges allotted to him by statute, he did not thereafter express his dissatisfaction with the jury as constituted. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 14.) I also agree that even assuming he had preserved the issue for our consideration, neither prospective juror demonstrated his or her views would prevent or substantially impair the prospective juror’s ability to serve on the jury.
Our conclusion on the forfeiture issue, however, raises a small but important issue, namely, what exactly must a litigant do to preserve such a claim for appeal? Unfortunately, this court has been less than consistent on this point. On the one hand, we have held that “[t]o preserve a claim based on the trial court’s overruling a defense challenge for cause, a defendant must show (1) he used an available peremptory challenge to remove the juror in question; (2) he exhausted all of his peremptory challenges or can justify the failure to do so; and (3) he expressed dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected.” (People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 379 [133 Cal.Rptr.2d 561, 68 P.3d 1], italics added; see also People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 539 [43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076] [quoting Maury with approval].)
On the other hand, we have also articulated the test this way: “To preserve a claim of trial court error in failing to remove a juror for bias in favor of the death penalty, a defendant must either exhaust all peremptory challenges and express dissatisfaction with the jury ultimately selected or justify the failure to do so.” (People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 667 [66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573, 941 P.2d 752], italics added; see also People v. Hoyos (2007) 41 Cal.4th 872, 904 [63 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 162 P.3d 528] [quoting Williams with approval]; People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1099 [40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321] [same].)
The difference is subtle. Does the justification option excuse the failure to exhaust one’s peremptory challenges, the failure to express dissatisfaction with the jury, or both? As the majority implicitly recognizes, we need not resolve the point in this case, because defendant neither stated he was dissatisfied with the jury nor attempted to justify that failure. Counsel in future cases who wish to raise this issue on appeal, however, should be aware of this potential inconsistency in the law and ensure that they (1) remove the *35prospective juror using a peremptory challenge, (2) exhaust their allotted challenges, and (3) express on the record their dissatisfaction with the jury as constituted. Only then can they be confident the issue will be properly preserved for appellate review.
With that caveat, I concur.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied June 11, 2008.