People v. Black
169 Cal. Rptr. 3d 363
Cal.2014Background
- Defendant charged with two counts of animal cruelty; jury trial resulted in convictions and a 4-year sentence.
- During voir dire, defense challenged three prospective jurors for cause (M.P., A.D., and Juror No. 8); court denied challenges to M.P. and A.D., who were then removed with two of defendant’s peremptory strikes.
- After using those strikes (and others), defendant exhausted his 10 allotted peremptory challenges and asked for additional peremptory strikes to remove Juror No. 8 and another juror; the court denied the request.
- Juror No. 8 was not challenged successfully for cause and was ultimately seated; defendant preserved the claim by exhausting strikes and objecting to the jury as constituted.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether denial of extra peremptory challenges required reversal when a seated juror was not challengeable for cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of additional peremptory challenges after defendant exhausted strikes due to erroneous refusals to excuse jurors for cause requires reversal | People: No reversible error absent proof that an incompetent (for-cause) juror actually sat on the jury | Defendant: Denial of extra peremptories prejudiced him because forced use of strikes to cure court errors prevented him from removing other objectionable jurors | Court: No reversal. Error in denying for-cause to M.P. and A.D. was cured when defendant used peremptory strikes; prejudice requires that a juror who should have been excused for cause actually sat on the jury |
| Whether a defendant is entitled as of right to additional peremptory challenges when he exhausted allotted strikes after curing for-cause errors | People: Statutory allotment satisfied; using peremptories to cure errors does not deny the statutory right absent seating of a biased juror | Defendant: Losing opportunity to "mold the jury" by using strikes is a statutory deprivation warranting reversal | Court: No statutory violation where defendant received full allotment and no incompetent juror served; peremptories are statutory tools to cure for-cause denials, not a constitutional entitlement to extra strikes |
| Whether dictum in People v. Bittaker requires reversal when defendant exhausted peremptories after erroneous for-cause denials | People: Bittaker dictum is not controlling; Yeoman and Ross set correct standard requiring a seated incompetent juror to show prejudice | Defendant: Relies on Bittaker dictum and some sister-state decisions to argue reversible prejudice | Court: Rejects Bittaker dictum as basis for reversal; adopts Yeoman/Ross standard |
| Whether seating of Juror No. 8 (objected to but not removable for cause) required reversal | People: Juror No. 8 was not removable for cause, so denial of extra strikes is not reversible | Defendant: Juror No. 8 was objectionable and denial of extra strikes prejudiced him | Court: Juror No. 8 was not biased for cause; denial of extra peremptory challenges was not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1988) (holding that forcing a defendant to use peremptory challenges to cure for-cause errors does not automatically violate the Sixth Amendment absent a biased juror sitting)
- People v. Yeoman, 31 Cal.4th 93 (Cal. 2003) (California standard: prejudice shown only if an incompetent juror who should have been excused for cause actually sat on the jury)
- People v. Bittaker, 48 Cal.3d 1046 (Cal. 1989) (dictum suggesting reversal if defendant used peremptories to cure for-cause errors and then exhausted strikes; court declines to treat dictum as controlling)
- United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2000) (peremptory challenges are not a constitutional right; defendant receives what statutory allotment provides and may be required to use peremptories to cure errors)
- People v. Armendariz, 37 Cal.3d 573 (Cal. 1984) (distinguishable: reversible error where court denied a defendant the ability to exercise the statutorily allotted number of peremptory challenges)