91 Cal.App.5th 941
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Jury selection began after Code Civ. Proc. § 231.7 took effect (applies to trials starting on or after Jan. 1, 2022).
- Prospective juror L. privately disclosed that her cousin had been convicted in the same court and that she had a negative experience involving the district attorney, including discussing the cousin’s case in her class and consulting a lawyer about the DA’s conduct.
- The prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove L., expressly citing her negative experience with law enforcement and close relationship to a convicted person—reasons listed as presumptively invalid under § 231.7(e).
- The trial court adjudicated the objection under the pre-§ 231.7 Batson/Wheeler framework, denied the motion, and later said the challenge was valid based on the DA’s statements and the court’s view of the record.
- Defendant Jaime was convicted on four counts and placed on two years’ formal probation; on appeal he argued the peremptory challenge was invalid under § 231.7 and unrebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jaime forfeited a § 231.7 objection by not specifically invoking that statute at trial | Jaime failed to specifically object under § 231.7, so the claim is forfeited | The futility exception applies because the prosecutor and court relied on pre-§ 231.7 law, so a § 231.7 objection would have been futile | Court: Futility exception applies; objection not forfeited |
| Whether the People rebutted the presumption that the peremptory challenge was invalid under § 231.7(e) | The prosecutor’s stated reasons themselves constitute clear and convincing evidence rebutting the presumption | The People offered no independent evidence; their stated reasons fall within § 231.7(e)’s presumptively invalid categories and were not rebutted | Court: No clear-and-convincing rebuttal; challenge was presumptively invalid and error was prejudicial; reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (established three-step inquiry for racial discrimination in peremptory challenges)
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (1978) (California analog to Batson for group-based exclusions)
- People v. Cunningham, 61 Cal.4th 609 (2015) (failure to object to peremptory challenge generally forfeits claim)
- Unzueta v. Akopyan, 42 Cal.App.5th 199 (2019) (purpose of forfeiture rule is to allow trial courts to correct errors)
- People v. Wilson, 44 Cal.4th 758 (2008) (futility exception to forfeiture applies in unusual circumstances)
- People v. Zambrano, 124 Cal.App.4th 228 (2004) (trial counsel excused from objecting where court would have overruled same objection)
- Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist., 7 Cal.5th 372 (2019) (courts avoid interpretations that render statutory language meaningless)
- People v. Lima, 80 Cal.App.5th 468 (2022) (futility exception applies only in unusual and extreme cases)