People v. Hall
Decision Date | 12 December 1983 |
Docket Number | Cr. 23063 |
Parties | , 672 P.2d 854 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Miguel HALL, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Theodore Winchester, San Francisco, for defendant and appellant.
Dane R. Gillette, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of violating Penal Code sections 245, subdivision (a), and 236. 1 We reverse, having concluded that the trial court failed to exercise its judgment in determining whether the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges was for reasons relevant to the case before it or reflected a constitutionally impermissible group bias. (See People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.)
Defendant, who is black, was charged with assault with intent to commit rape (§ 220), assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily harm (§ 245, subd. (a)), and false imprisonment (§ 236). The complaining witness, who is white, identified defendant as the man who approached her during a party held in a building housing decorators' showrooms, dragged her into a room where he strangled her until she lost consciousness, and fondled her when she came to, eventually releasing her when she agreed to forgive him. A first trial resulted in a mistrial when the lone black on the jury did not join the remainder of the jury in voting for guilty verdicts.
At the retrial, during voir dire of the jury panel, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse at least four black prospective jurors. After the prosecutor had excused two blacks with his first three peremptory challenges, 2 defendant asked that the People be required to make a showing that no systematic exclusion of blacks was underway if any further peremptory challenges were used to exclude black prospective jurors. The court deferred ruling until such challenges might be made.
The People then used their fourth and fifth peremptory challenges to excuse jurors, one or both of whom were black. 3 Defendant again asked that the People be required to make an appropriate showing before the panel of prospective jurors was exhausted. The prosecutor declined, although the court suggested that he put something on the record. Defendant asserted his belief that systematic exclusion of blacks was occurring and once again asked that reasons for the exclusion be put on the record if another black was excused peremptorily. Two black male prospective jurors 4 remained in the jury box when this request was made, and the court again deferred ruling, stating that the motion would be taken under submission until the end of the voir dire. The People peremptorily challenged three more jurors before the twelve-person jury was selected. Their eighth, and last, peremptory challenge was exercised to excuse the last black prospective juror. 5 Noting that only one black was among the prospective jurors on a new panel that had been brought in, defendant asked the court to vacate the panel, and to inquire into the prosecutor's reasons for excluding the black prospective jurors.
The prosecutor then, in response to the court's request, provided the following explanation:
The trial court declined any inquiry into or examination of the prosecutor's explanation. Stating that "a peremptory challenge is a peremptory challenge, otherwise, it's meaningless," the judge expressed a view that systematic exclusion of a class of potential jurors occurs only when the prosecutor announces an intent to keep all members of that group off the jury. 6 In response to defendant's plea that he see the reality of the prosecutor's actions, the judge again explained his belief that systematic exclusion is demonstrated only if the prosecutor expressly states an intent to exclude all members of a class. His comment also reflected a belief that the court may not or need not refuse to accept a prosecutor's explanation even if the explanation appears to be disingenuous. 7
The jury was then sworn; defendant was convicted, as noted above, of aggravated assault and false imprisonment; his motion for a new trial, supported in part by his assertion of error in the denial of his jury composition motions, 8 was denied, and this appeal followed. Because we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to determine whether racial motivation underlay the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges to remove blacks from the jury, it is unnecessary to consider defendant's additional arguments that prejudicial error occurred in the denial of discovery, admission of evidence of defendant's prior testimony, and in the court's refusal to give an instruction on the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence.
In People v. Wheeler, supra, 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748, this court faced the task of accommodating the People's statutory right to exercise peremptory challenges 9 with a defendant's constitutional right to a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community. We concluded that "the use of peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors on the sole ground of group bias violates the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution." (Id., at pp. 276-277, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.) And, recognizing that it is the "responsibility of our courts to insure that [the constitutional] guarantee not be reduced to a hollow form of words, but remain a vital and effective safeguard of the liberties of California citizens" (id., at p. 272, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748), we undertook to establish a procedure for implementing that principle.
We began "with the proposition that in any given instance the presumption must be that a party exercising a peremptory challenge is doing so on a constitutionally permissible ground." (Id., at p. 278, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.) The presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Ibid.) (Id., at pp. 280-282, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.)
We recognized in Wheeler and that (Id., at p. 275, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748.)
Yet it is imperative, if the constitutional guarantee is to have real meaning, that once a prima facie case of group bias appears the allegedly offending party be required to come forward with explanation to the court that demonstrates other bases for the challenges, and that the court satisfy itself that the explanation is genuine. This demands of the trial judge a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor's explanation in light of the circumstances of the case as then known, his knowledge of trial techniques, and his observations of the manner in which the prosecutor has examined members of the venire and has exercised challenges for cause or peremptorily, for "we rely on the good judgment of the trial courts to distinguish bona fide reasons for such peremptories from sham excuses...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Harvey
...to the court's attention." (Id., at pp. 280-281, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748, fns. omitted; see also People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 167, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854.) The court also expressed reliance on the judgment of trial courts in evaluating claims of racially based exclus......
-
People v. Hardy
...242 Cal.Rptr. 477, 746 P.2d 452 ; People v. Turner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 711, 230 Cal.Rptr. 656, 726 P.2d 102 ; People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854.) Racial discrimination against black jurors has not disappeared here or elsewhere during that time. (See Foster , s......
-
People v. Gutierrez, S224724
...of the prosecutor's examination of panelists and exercise of for-cause and peremptory challenges. (People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 167–168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854 (Hall ).) Justifications that are "implausible or fantastic ... may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for......
-
People v. Mai
...a part of our law. In the wake of People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, our state-law forerunner of Batson, this court in People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161 (Hall) emphasized that a trial court, in considering a Wheeler motion, must make "a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the pr......
-
Curbing the Prosecutor's Abuse of the Peremptory Challenge
...also, Taylor, supra, note 18 at 538; People v. Moody, 630 P.2d 74, 79 (Colo. 1981). 23. Wheeler, supra, note 4, 583 P.2d at 764-65. 24. 35 Cal.3d 161, 672 P.2d 854, 859 (Cal. 1983). 25. Supra, note 4. 26. Supra, note 4, 387 N.E.2d at 516. 27. Neil, supra, note 4; Gilmore, supra, note 4; Cre......