People v. Gutierrez, S224724
| Citation | 2 Cal.5th 1150,395 P.3d 186,218 Cal.Rptr.3d 289 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | S224724,S240419 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rene GUTIERREZ, Jr., Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gabriel Ramos, Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ramiro Enriquez, Defendant and Appellant. |
Scott Concklin, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant Rene Gutierrez, Jr.
Donn Ginoza, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant Gabriel Ramos.
Janet J. Gray, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant Ramiro Enriquez.
Mary McComb, State Public Defender, Elias Batchelder and AJ Kutchins, Deputy State Public Defenders, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler and Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein, Eric L. Christoffersen, Rachelle A. Newcomb and Jennifer M. Poe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Cuéllar, J.Civil litigants and criminal defendants are guaranteed the right to trial by jury under the state and federal Constitutions. Because of this, California's system of justice depends on jurors. The mix of Californians who report for jury service across the state changes nearly every day, but the responsibility of courts to assure integrity in the selection of jurors does not. We have long held that discrimination in jury selection based on race, ethnicity, or similar grounds offends constitutional guarantees—and so has the United States Supreme Court. (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 (Wheeler ); Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (Batson ).) It is not only litigants who are harmed when the right to trial by impartial jury is abridged. Taints of discriminatory bias in jury selection—actual or perceived—erode confidence in the adjudicative process, undermining the public's trust in courts. (Miller-El v. Dretke (2005) 545 U.S. 231, 238, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 ; Powers v. Ohio (1991) 499 U.S. 400, 412, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411.)
During jury selection proceedings at trial, defendants Rene Gutierrez, Jr., Gabriel Ramos, and Ramiro Enriquez (collectively, defendants) joined in a Batson /Wheeler motion, contending that the prosecutor had improperly excluded prospective jurors on account of Hispanic ethnicity, after the prosecutor exercised 10 of 16 peremptory challenges to remove Hispanic individuals from the jury panel. The trial court found that defendants had established a prima facie case, but denied defendants' motion after finding the prosecutor's reasons to be neutral and nonpretextual. The Court of Appeal affirmed defendants' convictions in all respects.
This case offers us an opportunity to clarify the constitutionally required duties of California lawyers, trial judges, and appellate judges when a party has raised a claim of discriminatory bias in jury selection. What we conclude is that the record here does not sufficiently support the trial court's denial of the Batson /Wheeler motion with respect to one prospective juror. The error is structural, damaging the integrity of the tribunal itself. In addition, the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to conduct comparative juror analysis. Defendants' resulting convictions must be reversed.
Around midnight on July 30, 2011, defendant Ramos became involved in an altercation with Clarence Langston in the parking lot of the Western Nights Motel in Bakersfield. Ramos asked defendants Gutierrez and Enriquez, who had been observing from a balcony, to come down. Ramos said he was going to retrieve a gun to defend himself, and he left the motel on foot. Langston rode away on his bicycle.
Gabriel Trevino testified that after Ramos and Langston left the motel premises, he, along with Enriquez and Gutierrez, got into an SUV driven by Kyle Fuller. At a stop sign, Enriquez said, "Look, there he is, there he is," identifying Langston. Gutierrez exited the vehicle, brandished his firearm, and fired three rounds. Langston was hit with multiple shotgun pellets and suffered nonfatal wounds
to his upper body.
The prosecution's gang expert testified that defendants were Sureño gang members, and that the shooting was gang-related. According to the expert, Ramos was a member of the Varrio Bakers, a Sureño gang subset based in Bakersfield. Gutierrez and Enriquez, according to the expert, were members of Varrio West Side Shafter, a different Sureño gang subset based in Shafter. And Trevino testified that he himself was member of Varrio Wasco Rifas, a Sureño gang subset based in Wasco.
On June 6, 2012, a jury convicted Gutierrez and Enriquez of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 & 187, subd. (a));1 assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); and active participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). As to those two defendants, the jury found applicable a firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (d) & (e)(1)) as to attempted premeditated murder, and a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) as to attempted premeditated murder and assault with a firearm. The jury deadlocked in deciding whether Ramos committed attempted premeditated murder and assault with a firearm, so the court declared a mistrial as to those counts. Ramos was found guilty of active participation in a criminal street gang, and he thereafter pleaded no contest to making criminal threats and admitted prior convictions. Following a bifurcated court trial, the court found true the prior strike conviction allegations as to Enriquez and Gutierrez.
Gutierrez was sentenced to prison for 30 years to life, plus 27 years. Enriquez was sentenced to prison for 14 years to life, plus 25 years. Ramos was sentenced to prison for 5 years. The Court of Appeal consolidated the appeals for Gutierrez, Ramos, and Enriquez. It unanimously affirmed the judgments in all respects.
All three defendants are Hispanic, and they joined in a Batson / Wheeler motion toward the end of voir dire proceedings. The motion was brought on the basis of asserted discriminatory exclusion of Hispanic individuals. Although counsel for Gutierrez also commented that a disproportionate number of strikes had been against females, he did not do so until after the prosecutor tendered his neutral explanations for panelists identified as Hispanic. Even assuming that defendants properly made a motion challenging the prosecutor's exclusion of females, the issue is not preserved for appeal because counsel did not obtain a ruling from the trial court. The court did not determine whether defendants established a prima facie case based on gender discrimination. (See People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 481–482, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947 [].)
By the time the motion was made, the People had exercised 16 peremptory strikes—10 of them against individuals identified as Hispanic, either based on appearance or surname.2 The court observed that four of the prosecutor's challenges against Hispanics were consecutive. There were two Hispanic prospective jurors seated on the panel at the time of the motion.
The People do not dispute that the prosecutor's pattern of challenges showed "a disproportionate number of ... peremptory challenges against Hispanics." After finding that defendants had established a prima facie case under the Batson /Wheeler framework, the court asked the prosecutor to explain the reasons for his challenges. The prosecutor did so for each removed Hispanic panelist. The court individually reviewed eight out of 10 proffered justifications. The court did not individually review the strikes of Prospective Jurors Nos. 2468219 and 2547226.3 Thereafter, the court made a global finding that the prosecutor's strikes were neutral and nonpretextual. It also found that the prosecutor "paid the same attention to all the jurors in terms of questioning" and "asked appropriate questions" of all prospective jurors. The court denied defendants' motion.
Thereafter, the People struck three more panelists. Defendants individually exercised further peremptory challenges, with counsel for Gutierrez removing one prospective juror previously identified as Hispanic. The final jury included one Hispanic individual. After additional voir dire, two alternate jurors were selected. Defendants did not renew their Batson /Wheeler motion. We granted review on the limited issue of whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial court's denial of defendants'joint Batson /Wheeler motion.4
Peremptory challenges are a longstanding feature of civil and criminal adjudication. But the exercise of even a single peremptory challenge solely on the basis of race or ethnicity offends the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution. (Batson , supra , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ; United States v. Martinez-Salazar (2000) 528 U.S. 304, 315, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792.) Such conduct also violates a defendant's right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the state Constitution. (Wheeler , supra , 22 Cal.3d 258, 276–277, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.)
At issue in a Batson/ Wheeler motion is whether any specific prospective juror is challenged on account of bias against an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or similar grounds. (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 549, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076 (Avila ).) Exclusion of even one prospective juror for reasons impermissible under Batson and Wheeler constitutes structural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Gutierrez, S224724
...2 Cal.5th 1150395 P.3d 186218 Cal.Rptr.3d 289The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Rene GUTIERREZ, Jr., Defendant and Appellant.The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Gabriel Ramos, Defendant and Appellant.The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,v.Ramiro Enriquez, Defendant and Appellant.S224......