People v. Mata
158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 655
Cal.2013Background
- Defendant Francis Mata was convicted of possession of cocaine and resisting arrest; on appeal he argued the trial court erred after granting his Wheeler motion and reseating an African‑American prospective juror instead of quashing the venire.
- During voir dire the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against Prospective Juror No. 2473; the trial court found the challenge lacked a race‑neutral basis and disallowed it, ordering the juror to remain seated.
- Defense counsel did not request dismissal of the venire or object when the court reseated the juror; jury selection continued and defendant was later convicted.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, concluding defendant had not expressly or implicitly consented to reseating; the People petitioned for review to the California Supreme Court.
- The California Supreme Court considered whether Willis’s requirement of the "assent of the complaining party" can be satisfied by implied consent (silence/failure to object) and whether counsel may give that assent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Mata) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Willis’s phrase “assent of the complaining party” may be satisfied by implied consent | Assent can be implied from silence or continued participation when a party has an opportunity to object | Requires an intentional, knowing waiver; mere silence insufficient to show consent | Yes — assent may be found from implied consent when the complaining party fails to object given a meaningful opportunity to do so |
| Whether defense counsel can give assent on behalf of the defendant | Counsel generally controls procedural litigation matters and can waive non‑personal rights; counsel’s assent binds the client absent express conflict | Waiver of this right is personal and should be knowing; counsel’s silence cannot suffice to waive defendant’s right | Yes — counsel may assent to an alternative remedy and thereby waive the default Wheeler remedy absent an express conflict |
| Whether defense counsel’s silence here constituted implied assent | People: counsel had opportunity to object and demonstrated awareness of remedies (cited Wheeler; requested jurors remain in another instance), so silence implies consent | Mata: default remedy of quashing venire requires affirmative waiver; silence does not establish intentional relinquishment | Yes — under the record counsel had a meaningful opportunity to object and his silence implied consent to reseating |
| Appropriate remedy when a Wheeler violation is found (reseating juror vs quashing venire) | Willis permits alternative remedies short of quashing with complaining party’s assent; reseating is permissible | Quashing the venire is the default remedy; should not be displaced except by express, knowing waiver | Court reaffirms Wheeler is the default but allows alternatives (including reseating) with assent; here reseating was permissible because assent was implied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler) (established default remedy of dismissing selected jurors and quashing venire for group‑bias peremptory strikes)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) (federal rule prohibiting race‑based peremptory strikes; declined to prescribe specific remedies)
- People v. Willis, 27 Cal.4th 811 (Willis) (permitted trial courts discretionary alternative remedies to Wheeler’s default if the complaining party assents)
- People v. Toro, 47 Cal.3d 966 (Toro) (explained consent and when failure to object can imply consent to instructions/remedies)
- People v. Overby, 124 Cal.App.4th 1237 (Overby) (Court of Appeal held counsel can consent to alternative Wheeler remedies and implied consent may be found on the record)