People?v.?Fuentes?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?707?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?792;?818?P.2d?75
[No.?S004785.?Oct?31,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?JOSE?LEON?FUENTES,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?A?197745,?William?R.?Hollingsworth,?Jr.,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Panelli,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Kennard,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?concurring?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.)
COUNSEL
Chris?G.?Gasparich,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?Miller,?Starr?&?Regalia?and?Michael?J.?Hassen?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Edward?T.?Fogel,?Jr.,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Donald?E.?de?Nicola,?Susan?Lee?Frierson?and?Carol?Frederick?Jorstad,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
PANELLI,?J.
Defendant?Jose?Leon?Fuentes?appeals?from?the?sentence?of?death?imposed?on?retrial?after?this?court?reversed?the?judgment?of?death?in?[54?Cal.3d?711]?People?v.?Fuentes?(1985)?40?Cal.3d?629[221?Cal.Rptr.?440,?710?P.2d?240]?(Fuentes?I).?In?Fuentes?I?a?jury?had?convicted?defendant?of?first?degree?murder?(Pen.?Code,????187,?189),fn.?1?attempted?robbery?(???664,?211),?and?automobile?theft?(Veh.?Code,???10851)?and?had?found?true?a?special?circumstance?allegation?of?attempted?robbery?(??190.2,?subd.?(a)(17)(i)).?The?special?circumstance?allegation?has?been?retried?and?found?true,?and?the?jury?has?reimposed?the?death?penalty.?This?appeal?is?automatic?(??1239,?subd.?(b)).
We?conclude?that?defendant’s?constitutional?right?to?trial?by?a?jury?drawn?from?a?representative?cross-section?of?the?community?(Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???16)?was?violated?by?the?trial?court’s?failure?to?carefully?evaluate?the?prosecutor’s?explanations?for?peremptory?challenges?to?Black?prospective?jurors,?which?it?must?do?in?order?to?determine?whether?the?challenges?reflected?a?constitutionally?impermissible?group?bias.?(See?People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748]?(hereafter?Wheeler);?People?v.?Hall?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?161?[197?Cal.Rptr.?71,?672?P.2d?854].)
The?evidence?presented?on?retrial?of?the?special?circumstance?and?penalty?phases?paralleled?that?introduced?in?the?first?trial:?On?December?1,?1980,?defendant?and?an?accomplice,?both?of?whom?were?armed,?attempted?to?rob?a?Brinks?guard?as?he?was?leaving?the?cashier’s?office?of?a?department?store.?Defendant?and?the?guard?fell,?wounded,?when?gunshots?were?fired.?The?guard?died.?The?accomplice?escaped?and?was?never?apprehended.?A?gun?found?near?defendant?proved?to?be?the?weapon?which?had?fired?the?fatal?bullets.?At?the?penalty?phase,?defendant?stipulated?that?he?had?suffered?prior?robbery?convictions.?In?mitigation,?he?presented?the?testimony?of?his?family?members?and?prison?counselor,?who?noted?his?exemplary?academic?and?work?record?while?incarcerated.?(See?Fuentes?I,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?at?pp.?633-637.)
The?Voir?Dire.
Following?Witherspoon?voir?dire?(Witherspoon?v.?Illinois?(1968)?391?U.S.?510?[20?L.Ed.2d?776,?88?S.Ct.?1770])?and?voir?dire?on?challenges?for?cause,?several?jurors?were?excused?for?cause;?thereafter,?prospective?jurors?returned?to?court?for?peremptory?challenge.fn.?2?The?prosecutor?exercised?19?peremptory?challenges.?Of?the?13?prospective?trial?jurors?challenged,?10?were?Black.?Of?[54?Cal.3d?712]?the?6?prospective?alternates?challenged,?4?were?Black.?As?finally?constituted,?the?trial?jury?included?3?Black?jurors?and?3?Black?alternates.
Defense?counsel?made?the?first?of?several?objections?on?Wheeler?grounds?after?the?prosecutor?exercised?each?of?his?initial?four?challenges?against?Black?prospective?jurors.?The?trial?court?asked?the?prosecutor?for?an?explanation,?but?the?prosecutor?was?not?prepared?to?give?one.?He?said:?”I?have?only?’yes/no’?on?my?sheet,?Your?Honor.?To?be?able?to?answer?any?challenge,?I?will?need?to?get?the?transcripts?and?the?questionnaires?and?to?go?over?it?[sic]?in?some?detail?with?the?court.?I?would?not?begin?to?try?and?remember?at?this?point?all?of?the?reasons?which?is?[sic]?necessary?for?the?People?to?put?on?the?record?in?order?to?satisfy?the?court?that?the?purpose?and?reason?for?challenging?these?jurors?has?[sic]?nothing?to?do?with?race?but?strictly?with?their?answers?to?the?questions?and?the?voir?dire?itself.”?The?trial?court?indicated?that?it?would?note?which?prospective?jurors?were?Black?and?that?it?would?”have?the?reasons?set?forth?by?the?People”?before?trial?commenced.
The?prosecutor?thereafter?excused,?in?this?order,?two?more?Black?jurors,?one?juror?who?was?not?Black,?and?then?yet?another?Black?juror.?When?defense?counsel?again?objected?on?Wheeler?grounds,?the?court?stated?that?it?would?”consider?[counsel’s?objection]?a?continuing?motion”?but?did?not?inquire?further?into?the?matter.?The?prosecutor’s?next?three?challenges?were?also?to?Black?jurors.?Finally,?the?prosecutor?excused?two?jurors?who?were?not?Black.?In?total,?the?prosecutor?exercised?13?peremptory?challenges?to?the?trial?jury.?Ten?of?his?first?11?challenges?were?to?Black?jurors.?During?the?ensuing?selection?of?alternates,?the?prosecutor?peremptorily?challenged?4?more?Black?jurors.
At?the?conclusion?of?voir?dire,?the?court?finally?addressed?the?Wheeler?motion.?The?prosecutor?began?by?arguing?that?his?challenges?did?not?establish?a?prima?facie?case?of?group?bias.?When?defense?counsel?pointed?out?that?the?prosecutor?had?exercised?almost?every?challenge?against?Blacks,?the?prosecutor?irrelevantly?responded:?”And?I?think?that?the?defense?has?excused?almost?all?White?jurors,?your?Honor.”?At?this?point,?the?court?instructed?the?prosecutor:?”[G]o?down?and?get?your?records?so?we?can?put?[your?reasons?for?excusing?Blacks]?in?the?record.”
More?than?three?hours?later,?the?prosecutor?returned?with?his?records.?During?the?ensuing?two?hours?he?perused?the?daily?transcripts?and?the?questionnaires,?offering?a?multitude?of?purported?reasons-as?many?as?a?dozen?or?more?in?most?cases-to?justify?his?challenge?of?each?juror.?The?prosecutor?apparently?did?not?have?notes?on?the?reasons?for?his?challenges;?he?sometimes?quoted?and?sometimes?paraphrased?a?juror’s?response,?but?without?page?citation?to?the?transcript?or?to?the?questionnaire.?Defense?[54?Cal.3d?713]?counsel?complained?that?the?prosecutor?was?merely?reading?from?the?transcripts?and?was?not?giving?the?”reasons”?why?the?juror?was?excluded,?i.e.,?was?not?explaining?how?the?juror?in?question?was?revealing?a?possible?bias?that?was?relevant?to?the?case.?Counsel?also?expressed?concern?that?the?prosecutor?was?not?presenting?the?context?of?his?quotations?and?paraphrases.
Following?the?prosecutor’s?rambling?attempt?to?explain?his?challenges,?the?court?took?defendant’s?Wheeler?motion?under?submission.?On?the?following?morning,?the?court?ruled?that?no?prima?facie?showing?had?been?made.?Despite?this?ruling,?however,?the?court?examined?the?prosecutor’s?purported?reasons?for?excusing?the?14?Black?jurors.?Addressing?the?challenged?jurors?as?a?group,?the?court?found?that?some?of?the?prosecutor’s?excuses?were?”totally?unreasonable”?and?others?”very?spurious.”?The?court?also?stated,?however,?that?there?were?”some?good?reasons”?for?the?prosecutor’s?challenges,?namely,?that?certain?unidentified?prospective?jurors?or?their?relatives?had?been?arrested,?had?leanings?against?the?death?penalty,?or,?in?one?case,?had?given?responses?that?”should?not?be?trusted.”?Except?for?that?one?juror,?however,?identified?only?as?”a?gentleman?from?the?navy,”?the?court?did?not?identify?any?particular?juror?or?indicate?which?of?the?purportedly?”good?reasons”?applied?to?which?jurors.?In?conclusion,?the?trial?court?found?that?the?People?had?not?excluded?Blacks?improperly?and?denied?defendant’s?motion.?Later,?after?the?trial?court?had?gone?on?to?other?pretrial?matters,?the?prosecutor?interrupted?to?add?that?his?challenges?had?not?been?based?solely?on?”particular?questions”?but?also?on?”body?language.”?The?trial?court?ignored?the?interruption.
Defendant?assigns?as?error?the?trial?court’s?denial?of?his?motion?pursuant?to?Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?258.?The?principles?first?articulated?in?that?case?are?now?well?settled.?(See?People?v.?Johnson?(1989)?47?Cal.3d?1194,?1215-1216?[255?Cal.Rptr.?569,?767?P.2d?1047];?People?v.?Turner?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?711,?715-?717?[230?Cal.Rptr.?656,?726?P.2d?102];?People?v.?Hall,?supra,35?Cal.3d?161,?166-167.)?[1]?A?party?may?not?use?peremptory?challenges?to?remove?prospective?jurors?solely?on?the?basis?of?group?bias.?Group?bias?is?a?presumption?that?jurors?are?biased?merely?because?they?are?members?of?an?identifiable?group?distinguished?on?racial,?religious,?ethnic,?or?similar?grounds.?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?276.)?In?Batson?v.?Kentucky?(1986)476?U.S.?79?[90?L.Ed.2d?69,?106?S.Ct.?1712],?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?held?that?peremptory?challenges?based?solely?on?race?also?violated?the?federal?equal?protection?clause?when?the?defendant?is?a?member?of?the?race?being?challenged.?Although?Batson?has?no?application?in?this?case,fn.?3?the?high?[54?Cal.3d?714]?court?has?recently?extended?the?Batson?holding?and?given?a?defendant,?regardless?of?race,?standing?to?object?to?the?racially?discriminatory?use?of?peremptory?challenges.?(Powers?v.?Ohio?(1991)?___?U.S.?___?[113?L.Ed.2d?411,?111?S.Ct.?1364].)?Under?Wheeler,?of?course,?which?is?based?on?the?right?to?trial?by?a?representative?jury,?a?defendant?need?not?be?a?member?of?the?group?to?challenge?its?exclusion.?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?281.)
[2]?If?a?party?believes?an?opponent?is?improperly?using?peremptory?challenges?for?a?discriminatory?purpose,?that?party?must?make?a?timely?objection?and?a?prima?facie?showing?that?the?jurors?are?being?excluded?on?the?basis?of?group?bias.?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?280.)?To?establish?a?prima?facie?case,?the?moving?party?should?first?make?as?complete?a?record?as?possible;?second,?the?moving?party?must?establish?that?the?persons?excluded?are?members?of?a?cognizable?group;?and?third,?the?moving?party?must?show?a?strong?likelihood?that?the?persons?are?being?excluded?because?of?group?association.?(Ibid.;?see?also?People?v.?Sanders?(1990)?51?Cal.3d?471,?497-498?[273?Cal.Rptr.?537,?797?P.2d?561];?People?v.?Snow?(1987)?44?Cal.3d?216[242?Cal.Rptr.?477,?746?P.2d?452];?People?v.?Motton?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?596?[217?Cal.Rptr.?416,?704?P.2d?176];?People?v.?Allen?(1979)?23?Cal.3d?286?[152?Cal.Rptr.?454,?590?P.2d?30].)?Once?the?moving?party?has?established?a?prima?facie?case,?the?burden?shifts?to?the?other?party?to?come?forward?with?a?race-neutral?explanation?related?to?the?particular?case?to?be?tried.?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?pp.?281-282;?Batson?v.?Kentucky,?supra,?476?U.S.?at?pp.?96-98?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?87-?89];?People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1216.) [3]?This?court?and?the?high?court?have?professed?confidence?in?trial?judges’?ability?to?determine?the?sufficiency?of?the?prosecutor’s?explanations.?In?Wheeler,?we?said?that?we?will?”rely?on?the?good?judgment?of?the?trial?courts?to?distinguish?bona?fide?reasons?for?such?peremptories?from?sham?excuses?belatedly?contrived?to?avoid?admitting?acts?of?group?discrimination.”?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?282.)?Similarly,?the?high?court?stated?in?Batson?v.?Kentucky,?supra,?that?”the?trial?judge’s?findings?in?the?context?under?consideration?here?largely?will?turn?on?evaluation?of?credibility,”?and?for?that?reason?”a?reviewing?court?ordinarily?should?give?those?findings?great?deference.”?(476?U.S.?at?p.?98,?fn.?21?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?89].)In?People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?we?reemphasized?the?need?for?”a?standard?of?truly?giving?great?deference?to?the?trial?court?in?distinguishing?bona?fide?reasons?from?sham?excuses.”?(47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1221.)?We?disapproved?the?[54?Cal.3d?715]?approach?taken?earlier?in?People?v.?Trevino?(1985)39?Cal.3d?667?[217?Cal.Rptr.?652,?704?P.2d?719],?in?which?we?had?disallowed?subjective?reasons?for?peremptory?challenges?and?had?engaged?in?a?comparative?analysis?of?various?jurors’?responses?to?evaluate?the?bona?fides?of?the?prosecutor’s?stated?reasons.?We?disapproved?the?Trevino?approach?because?nothing?in?Wheeler?disallows?reliance?on?the?prospective?jurors’?body?language?or?manner?of?answering?questions?as?a?basis?for?rebutting?a?prima?facie?case,?and?because?comparative?analysis?of?jurors?unrealistically?ignores?”the?variety?of?factors?and?considerations?that?go?into?a?lawyer’s?decision?to?select?certain?jurors?while?challenging?others?that?appear?to?be?similar.”?(47?Cal.3d?at?pp.?1219,?1220.)
We?reaffirmed?in?People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?1194,?however,?that?the?trial?court?must?make?”?’a?sincere?and?reasoned’?”?attempt?to?evaluate?the?prosecutor’s?justifications.?(Id.?at?p.?1216,?citing?People?v.?Hall,?supra,?35?Cal.3d?161,?167-168.)?Furthermore,?every?questioned?peremptory?challenge?must?be?justified:?”If?the?court?finds?that?the?burden?of?justification?is?not?sustained?as?to?any?of?the?questioned?peremptory?challenges,?the?presumption?of?their?validity?is?rebutted”?and?the?court?must?dismiss?the?venire?and?begin?jury?selection?anew.?(Wheeler,?supra,?22?Cal.3d?at?p.?282.)?Batson?has?been?interpreted?to?afford?the?same?relief.?”[U]nder?Batson,?the?striking?of?a?single?black?juror?for?racial?reasons?violates?the?equal?protection?clause,?even?though?other?black?jurors?are?seated,?and?even?when?there?are?valid?reasons?for?the?striking?of?some?black?jurors.”?(People?v.?Battle?(8th?Cir.?1987)?836?F.2d?1084,?1086;?see?also?United?States?v.?Gordon?(11th?Cir.?1987)?817?F.2d?1538,?1541;?United?States?v.?David?(11th?Cir.?1986)?803?F.2d?1567,?1571;?People?v.?Gonzalez?(1989)?211?Cal.App.3d?1186,?1193?[259?Cal.Rptr.?870].)
Prima?Facie?Case?Finding.
As?noted,?the?procedure?for?challenging?a?party’s?use?of?peremptory?challenges?requires?the?moving?party?to?make?a?timely?objection?and?to?establish?a?prima?facie?case?to?the?court’s?satisfaction.
[4a]?Defendant?contends?that?he?made?a?timely?objection?after?the?prosecutor?challenged?the?first?four?jurors,?all?of?whom?were?Black.?Defendant?further?contends?that,?when?the?trial?court?asked?the?prosecutor?to?respond,?the?court?in?effect?found?that?a?prima?facie?case?had?been?made.?Although?the?trial?court?deferred?hearing?the?prosecutor’s?justifications,?it?noted:?”Before?we?commence?the?trial,?I?will?have?the?reasons?set?forth?by?the?People.”?Moreover,?when?voir?dire?concluded,?the?court?instructed?the?[54?Cal.3d?716]?prosecutor?to?obtain?his?records?and?justify?his?challenges?despite?the?prosecutor’s?claim?that?there?was?no?prima?facie?case.These?statements?by?the?trial?court?clearly?indicate?that?the?court?had?implicitly?found?a?prima?facie?case?of?improper?exclusion?on?the?basis?of?race.?That?the?trial?court?had?moved?beyond?the?required?prima?facie?finding?is?further?indicated?by?the?court’s?comment?to?defense?counsel?that,?”if?I?rule?in?your?favor,?I’d?start?over?with?a?whole?new?panel.”?Only?a?ruling?on?the?ultimate?question?of?the?adequacy?of?the?prosecutor’s?justifications?to?rebut?a?prima?facie?showing?would?present?the?issue?of?remedy.
After?finding?a?prima?facie?case?of?group?bias,?a?trial?court?ordinarily?proceeds?by?considering?the?prosecutor’s?justifications?and?then?by?ruling?on?their?adequacy.?In?this?case,?however,?the?court?appears?to?have?confused?these?steps.?After?hearing?the?prosecutor’s?justifications,?the?court?commented:?”Well,?in?reviewing?the?cases,?I?find?that?I?probably?should?have?ruled?on?whether?there?was?a?prima?facie?showing?that?established?a?systematic?exclusion.?And?I?failed?to?do?so.?However,?in?reviewing?the?matter,?I?would?indicate?that?I?find?that?there?was?no?prima?facie?showing?that?there?was?a?systematic?exclusion.”fn.?4?The?court?mentioned?three?factors?to?support?its?finding:?(1)?Defendant?was?not?of?the?same?race?as?the?excluded?jurors;?(2)?the?trial?jury,?as?finally?constituted,?included?three?Black?jurors;?and?(3)?no?discrimination?was?evident?in?the?manner?and?thoroughness?of?the?voir?dire.
The?People?contend?that?the?trial?court’s?express?finding?of?no?prima?facie?showing?effectively?disposes?of?the?Wheeler?issue.?We?disagree.
[5a]?First,?we?have?consistently?held?that?when?the?trial?court?inquires?about?the?prosecutor’s?justifications,?as?in?this?case,?the?court?has?made?”at?least?an?implied?finding”?of?a?prima?facie?showing.?[6]?(See?fn.?5.)?(People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1217;?People?v.?Turner,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?718-719;?People?v.?Hall,?supra,?35?Cal.3d?at?p.?165.?See?also?People?v.?Mason?(1991)?52?Cal.3d?909,?937?[277?Cal.Rptr.?166,?802?P.2d?950].)fn.?5?[54?Cal.3d?717]The?prosecutor?in?this?case?evidently?understood?the?court’s?inquiry?as?an?implied?finding,?for?he?stated?he?was?unprepared?to?give?his?”reasons”?when?the?Wheeler?objection?was?first?made.
[5b]?Second,?there?is?authority?for?the?proposition?that?once?the?trial?court?has?ruled,?expressly?or?by?implication,?that?a?prima?facie?case?has?been?made?and?that?the?burden?has?shifted?to?the?prosecution,?the?court?may?not?then?”return?to?the?screening?process.?The?sole?issue?then?pending?is?the?adequacy?of?the?justifications.”?(People?v.?Granillo?(1987)?197?Cal.App.3d?110,?122?[242?Cal.Rptr.?639];?see?also?People?v.?Gonzalez,?supra,?211?Cal.App.3d?1186,?1198.)The?United?States?Supreme?Court?reached?the?same?conclusion?in?the?context?of?motions?under?Batson?v.?Kentucky,?supra,?476?U.S.?79.?In?Hernandez?v.?New?York?(1991)?500?U.S.?___?[114?L.Ed.2d?395,?111?S.Ct.?1859],?the?court?found?the?lack?of?a?ruling?on?the?threshold?issue?irrelevant?when?a?prosecutor?had?explained?his?use?of?peremptory?challenges?without?prompting?or?inquiry?by?the?trial?court,?and?when?the?court?had?actually?considered?the?explanations.?Under?those?circumstances,?the?trial?court?had?no?occasion?to?decide?whether?the?defendant?had?met?the?prima?facie?showing?requirement.?Thus,?the?absence?of?a?finding?on?the?threshold?showing?did?not?affect?review.?”Once?a?prosecutor?has?offered?a?race-neutral?explanation?for?the?peremptory?challenges?and?the?trial?court?has?ruled?on?the?ultimate?question?of?intentional?discrimination,?the?preliminary?issue?of?whether?the?defendant?had?made?a?prima?facie?showing?becomes?moot.”?(Id.?at?p.?___?[114?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?405].)
Accordingly,?we?proceed?to?the?court’s?evaluation?of?the?prosecutor’s?justifications?for?his?peremptory?challenges.?[54?Cal.3d?718] The?Trial?Court’s?Evaluation?of?the?Prosecutor’s?Reasons.
[7]?The?trial?court’s?responsibilities?in?this?phase?of?a?Wheeler?motion?are?set?out?in?People?v.?Hall,?supra,?35?Cal.3d?161,?167-168:?”[I]t?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?[an]?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?….”In?People?v.?Hall,?supra,?35?Cal.3d?161,?we?concluded?that?the?trial?court?had?made?no?serious?attempt?to?evaluate?the?bona?fides?of?the?prosecutor’s?explanations.?(35?Cal.3d?at?p.?168.)?[4b]?In?this?case,?as?we?shall?explain,?the?trial?court?did?make?some?effort?to?evaluate?the?prosecutor’s?explanations,?but?the?court?evaluated?them?only?in?the?abstract.?The?court?did?not?determine?whether?the?”bona?fide”?or?the?”sham”?reasons?actually?applied?to?particular?challenged?jurors.?For?this?reason,?the?trial?court?did?not?satisfy?its?Wheeler?obligation?of?inquiry?and?evaluation,?and?the?judgment?must?therefore?be?reversed.
The?prosecutor?stated?his?reasons?for?challenging?each?of?the?14?prospective?Black?jurors?at?length,?referring?to?answers?in?the?questionnaires?and?reading?from?the?transcript?of?the?voir?dire.?Unlike?the?trial?court?in?Hall,?there?is?no?indication?that?the?court?in?this?case?considered?itself?bound?to?accept?the?prosecutor’s?explanations?at?face?value.?The?court?found?some?of?the?stated?reasons?genuine?(“good”)?and?some?false?(“spurious”)?and?indicated?which?were?which,?but?the?court?failed?to?consider?which?of?the?valid?reasons?applied?to?which?jurors.
Moreover,?review?of?defendant’s?Wheeler?claim?has?been?made?difficult?by?the?court’s?failure?to?ask?for?justifications?until?the?conclusion?of?voir?dire.?The?large?number?of?challenges?exercised,?combined?with?the?large?number?of?reasons?given?for?challenging?each?prospective?juror,?compounded?the?trial?court’s?task.?The?trial?court?itself?perceived?this?problem,?noting?that?the?time?lapse?between?the?examinations?and?the?prosecutor’s?justifications?(“three?or?four?weeks”)?presented?problems?of?recall.fn.?6?As?will?appear,?the?[54?Cal.3d?719]?end?result?was?that?the?trial?court?did?not,?and?perhaps?could?not,?evaluate?the?prosecutor’s?explanations?as?to?individual?jurors.?Instead,?the?court?made?a?global?ruling?as?to?which?of?the?prosecutor’s?reasons?were?neutral,?and?therefore?proper.?However,?the?court?erroneously?failed?to?relate?its?findings?to?particular?challenged?jurors?except?in?the?case?of?a?single?alternate?juror?whose?responses?raised?a?question?as?to?his?honesty.
To?illustrate,?the?trial?court?found?”totally?unreasonable”?one?of?the?prosecutor’s?reasons?for?excusing?many?of?the?Black?jurors,?namely?their?having?answered?”no”?to?a?series?of?questions?(Nos.?94?through?97)?regarding?their?attitudes?towards?the?death?penalty.fn.?7?The?court?found?this?reason?invalid?”not?only?from?the?fact?that?the?answer?’no’?probably?is?the?proper?answer?to?each?of?those?questions?for?any?juror,?but?secondly?because?[the?prosecutor]?left,?as?I?count,?more?than?half?of?the?remaining?jurors?there?in?the?box?who?also?answered?’no’?to?all?those?questions.?So?that?can’t?be?a?basic?reason?for?his?exclusion.”
Regarding?the?myriad?other?reasons?that?the?prosecutor?offered?to?explain?his?exclusions,?the?court?said:?”I?also?recognize?that?the?People?were?using?kind?of?a?shotgun?approach?to?the?reasoning?[justification]?process,?hoping?that?something?would?fly?…?would?shoot?down?a?good?excuse?somewhere?down?the?line.”?(Italics?added.)?Indeed,?on?numerous?occasions?the?prosecutor?cited?as?a?justification?for?excusing?a?particular?juror?the?nature?of?the?juror’s?employment,?recreational?choices,?or?choice?of?reading?material.?The?prosecutor?also?pointed?out?that?the?excluded?jurors?were?unfamiliar?with?the?[54?Cal.3d?720]?meaning?of?words,?including?legal?terms?with?which?the?juror?had?no?experience;?he?noted?that?some?of?the?jurors?left?certain?questions?in?the?questionnaire?blank,?that?they?gave?ungrammatical?answers,?or?that?they?misspelled?words?in?their?response?to?the?questionnaire.fn.?8?The?prosecutor?did?not?articulate?how?these?failings?related?to?jury?service?in?this?case.?The?trial?court?understandably?found?such?reasons?”very?spurious.”
The?trial?court?nevertheless?found?three?”good?reasons”?for?the?prosecutor’s?excusals.?The?court?stated:?”I?feel?that?there?were?good?reasons?for?excusing?the?jurors?that?were?excused.?Those?that?had?been?arrested?or?relatives?been?arrested,?I?think?in?reading?the?cases?the?courts?have?indicated?that’s?a?proper?reason.?…?And?I?thought?that?some?of?the?jurors?with?their?leanings?against?the?death?penalty,?in?this?type?of?a?case,?that?is?a?proper?excuse.”?Except?for?the?single?juror?whose?answers?seemed?to?suggest?dishonesty,?the?trial?court?accepted?no?other?reasons?for?challenge?as?valid.
In?summary,?the?trial?court?took?the?first?step?in?the?evaluation?process.?It?determined?which?of?the?myriad?justifications?cited?by?the?prosecutor?were?sham?and?which?were?bona?fide.?However,?a?truly?”reasoned?attempt”?to?evaluate?the?prosecutor’s?explanations?(People?v.?Hall,?supra,?35?Cal.3d?at?pp.?167-168)?requires?the?court?to?address?the?challenged?jurors?individually?to?determine?whether?any?one?of?them?has?been?improperly?excluded.?In?that?process,?the?trial?court?must?determine?not?only?that?a?valid?reason?existed?but?also?that?the?reason?actually?prompted?the?prosecutor’s?exercise?of?the?particular?peremptory?challenge.
We?reiterate?that?the?trial?court?is?in?the?best?position?to?determine?whether?a?given?explanation?is?genuine?or?sham.?For?that?reason,?we?continue?to?accord?great?deference?to?the?trial?court’s?ruling?that?a?particular?reason?is?[54?Cal.3d?721]?genuine.?(People?v.?Johnson,?supra,?47?Cal.3d?at?p.?1221.)?In?this?case,?however,?the?trial?court?failed?to?take?the?next,?necessary?step?of?asking?whether?the?asserted?reasons?actually?applied?to?the?particular?jurors?whom?the?prosecutor?challenged.?For?this?reason,?we?are?compelled?to?reverse?the?judgment?of?death.?Our?conclusion?makes?it?unnecessary?to?reach?defendant’s?remaining?contentions.?Accordingly,?the?special?circumstance?finding?is?set?aside,?and?the?judgment?imposing?a?penalty?of?death?is?reversed.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.,
Concurring.
I?concur?in?the?judgment.?In?my?view,?the?majority?soundly?conclude?that?the?judgment?of?death?must?be?reversed.
I?write?separately?to?clarify?what?I?believe?to?be?the?fundamental?basis?of?our?decision.
In?People?v.?Wheeler?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?258,?276-?277?[148?Cal.Rptr.?890,?583?P.2d?748],?we?held?that?the?use?of?peremptory?challenges?by?a?prosecutor?to?strike?prospective?jurors?on?the?basis?of?group?membership?or?bias?violates?the?right?of?a?criminal?defendant?to?trial?by?a?jury?drawn?from?a?representative?cross-section?of?the?community?under?article?I,?section?16,?of?the?California?Constitution.?Subsequently,?in?Batson?v.?Kentucky?(1986)?476?U.S.?79,?84-89?[90?L.Ed.2d?69,?79-83,?106?S.Ct.?1712],?and?its?progeny,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?held?that?such?a?practice?also?violates?the?defendant’s?right?to?equal?protection?of?the?laws?under?the?Fourteenth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution.
Blacks,?of?course,?are?a?cognizable?group?for?purposes?of?both?Wheeler?(22?Cal.3d?at?p.?280,?fn.?26)?and?Batson?(476?U.S.?at?pp.?84-89?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?79-83]).
Under?Wheeler,?there?is?a?presumption?that?a?prosecutor?uses?peremptory?challenges?in?a?constitutional?manner.?(22?Cal.3d?at?p.?278.)?The?defendant?bears?the?burden?to?show,?prima?facie,?the?presence?of?invidious?discrimination.?(Id.?at?p.?280.)?If?he?succeeds,?the?burden?shifts?to?the?prosecutor?to?show?its?absence.?(Id.?at?p.?281.)?If?he?fails,?the?defendant’s?prima?facie?showing?becomes?conclusive.?(See?id.?at?p.?282.)?In?such?a?situation,?the?presumption?of?constitutionality?is?rebutted.?(Ibid.)?Substantially?the?same?principles?apply?under?Batson.?(See?476?U.S.?at?pp.?89-98?[90?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?82-?89].)?[54?Cal.3d?722]
In?this?case,?we?are?required?to?conclude?that?the?prosecutor?peremptorily?challenged?Black?prospective?jurors?on?the?basis?of?group?membership?or?bias?in?violation?of?the?United?States?and?California?Constitutions.?Defendant?carried?his?burden.?The?prosecutor?did?not.
In?reversing?the?judgment,?I?join?the?majority?in?finding?fault?with?the?procedural?deficiencies?of?the?trial?court.?Indeed,?on?this?record?I?cannot?do?otherwise.
Nevertheless,?I?believe?that?we?must?place?the?ultimate?blame?on?its?real?source-the?prosecutor.?It?was?he?who?unconstitutionally?struck?Black?prospective?jurors.?The?record?compels?this?conclusion?and?permits?none?other.?This?was?no?”technical”?or?inadvertent?violation.?This?prosecutor?knew?that?such?conduct?was?altogether?improper.?The?trial?court?told?him?as?much.?And?so?did?we.?Only?a?few?months?earlier,?in?People?v.?Turner?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?711?[230?Cal.Rptr.?656,?726?P.2d?102],?this?court?attempted?to?teach?this?same?prosecutor?that?invidious?discrimination?was?unacceptable?when?we?reversed?a?judgment?of?death?because?of?similar?improper?conduct?on?his?part.?He?failed-or?refused-to?learn?his?lesson.?The?result?is?another?reversal-and?another?costly?burden?on?the?administration?of?justice.fn.?1
For?the?foregoing?reasons,?I?agree?with?the?majority?that?the?judgment?of?death?must?be?reversed.
FN?1.?All?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?Each?of?the?110?prospective?jurors?not?excused?for?hardship?had?already?completed?an?18-page?questionnaire?with?111?questions.?The?questionnaire,?which?was?intended?to?”streamline?the?voir?dire,”?solicited?the?prospective?jurors’?views?on?the?death?penalty?and?their?background,?education,?experience,?and?attitudes.
FN?3.?Defendant,?an?Hispanic?immigrant?from?Cuba,?is?not?of?the?same?race?as?the?challenged?jurors.
FN?4.?We?note?that?this?court,?and?others,?sometimes?use?the?term?”systematic?exclusion”?to?describe?a?discriminatory?use?of?peremptory?challenges.?The?term?is?not?apposite?in?the?Wheeler?context,?for?a?single?discriminatory?exclusion?may?violate?a?defendant’s?right?to?a?representative?jury.?The?term?more?properly?refers?to?underrepresentation?in?the?venires?from?which?juries?are?selected,?in?the?context?of?Duren?v.?Missouri?(1979)?439?U.S.?357?[58?L.Ed.2d?579,?99?S.Ct.?664].
FN?5.?We?reiterate?our?concern,?expressed?in?Turner?(supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?719,?fn.?3)?and?in?Mason?(supra,?52?Cal.3d?at?p.?937,?fn.?7),?that?rulings?by?implication?may?confuse?the?parties?as?to?their?respective?obligations?under?Wheeler.
When?a?Wheeler?motion?is?made,?the?party?opposing?the?motion?should?be?given?an?opportunity?to?respond?to?the?motion,?i.e.,?to?argue?that?no?prima?facie?case?has?been?made.?At?this?point?no?explanation?for?the?exercise?of?the?peremptory?challenges?need?be?given.?After?argument,?the?trial?court?should?expressly?rule?on?whether?a?prima?facie?showing?has?been?made.?Statements?by?the?court?such?as?”do?you?wish?to?respond?”?or?”do?you?want?to?explain?”?do?not?clearly?indicate?whether?the?court?wants?argument?on?the?existence?of?a?prima?facie?case,?or?whether?the?court?has?already?found?a?prima?facie?case?and?now?wants?to?hear?the?prosecutor’s?explanations.?The?parties?should?not?be?required?to?guess?as?to?what?the?court?has?or?has?not?ruled?with?respect?to?the?motion.?Justifications?for?the?challenged?peremptories?need?only?be?given?if?the?court?rules?that?a?prima?facie?case?does?exist.?In?ruling?on?a?Wheeler?motion,?therefore,?the?trial?court?should?in?every?instance?make?an?express?determination?whether?or?not?the?prima?facie?showing?requirement?has?been?met.
We?also?reemphasize?the?trial?court’s?role?in?making?an?adequate?record?when?dealing?with?a?Wheeler?motion.?Notwithstanding?the?deference?we?give?to?a?trial?court’s?determinations?of?credibility?and?sincerity,?we?can?only?do?so?when?the?court?has?clearly?expressed?its?findings?and?rulings?and?the?bases?therefor.
FN?6.?The?court?noted,?somewhat?inartfully,?that?”the?People?being-at?least?should?be-very?conscious?of?this?particular?issue?and?should?have?made?notes?at?the?time?to?justify?exclusion,?particularly?at?the?time?when?they?knew?that?they?were?probably?going?to?exclude?them,?which?I?gather?he?did?at?some?point?earlier?than?coming?into?court?yesterday.”
In?fact,?there?is?no?indication?in?the?record?that?the?prosecutor?made?notes,?other?than?the?”yes/no”?referred?to?earlier,?or?that?he?was?reading?from?anything?other?than?the?transcript?and?the?questionnaires?in?justifying?his?challenge?of?particular?jurors.
Contemporaneous?notes?by?the?prosecutor?as?to?the?reasons?for?peremptory?challenges?may?prove?to?be?indispensable?to?the?Wheeler?process.?We?also?encourage?the?trial?courts?to?make?whatever?notations?are?feasible?when?jurors?are?being?examined.
FN?7.?Question?No.?94:?”Do?you?believe?the?state?should?impose?the?death?penalty?on?everyone?who,?for?whatever?reason,?kills?another?human?being?”
Question?Nos.?95?through?97?were?apparently?drafted?in?response?to?Fuentes?I,?supra,?40?Cal.3d?629,?and?Carlos?v.?Superior?Court?(1983)?35?Cal.3d?131?[197?Cal.Rptr.?79,?672?P.2d?862]:
Question?No.?95:?”Do?you?believe?the?state?should?impose?the?death?penalty?on?everyone?who?kills?another?human?being,?whether?or?not?he?had?the?intent?to?kill?”?(Italics?added.)
Question?No.?96:?”Do?you?feel?that?the?state?should?put?to?death?anyone?who?kills?another?human?being?during?the?commission?of?a?felony,?namely?a?robbery?or?attempted?robbery,?whether?or?not?he?had?the?intent?to?kill?”?(Italics?added.)
Question?No.?97:?”Do?you?feel?the?state?should?put?to?death?anyone?who?participates?in?the?commission?of?a?felony,?namely?a?robbery?or?attempted?robbery,?which?results?in?the?death?of?a?human?being?”?(Many?prospective?jurors?left?blanks?on?this?question;?only?one?answered?”yes.”)
FN?8.?We?question?the?propriety?and?value?of?a?questionnaire?as?extensive?as?that?used?in?this?case.?While?there?is?statutory?authority?for?the?use?of?questionnaires,?either?on?the?court’s?own?motion?or?as?proposed?by?counsel?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???205,?subds.?(c)?&?(d)),?the?questionnaire?must?be?relevant?and?necessary?for?assisting?in?the?voir?dire?process.?Jurors?in?this?case?were?questioned,?among?other?things,?about?their?understanding?of?legal?terminology?and?principles.?Many?of?the?jurors?had?no?prior?jury?experience?and,?without?the?guidance?of?the?court,?could?only?guess?at?the?proper?answers.?We?understand?that?the?Judicial?Council?of?California?is?studying?the?feasibility?of?uniform?or?standard?juror?questionnaire?forms.?Some?sort?of?uniformity?in?this?area?would?avoid?some?of?the?problems?encountered?in?this?case.?It?is?also?significant?that?section?7?of?Proposition?115?(eff.?June?6,?1990)?has?placed?restrictions?on?the?scope?of?voir?dire.?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?section?223,?as?amended?by?Proposition?115,?provides?that?the?”[e]xamination?of?prospective?jurors?shall?be?conducted?only?in?aid?of?the?exercise?of?challenges?for?cause.”?Standard?juror?questionnaires?should?materially?assist?the?implementation?of?section?7?of?Proposition?115.
FN?1.?I?note?in?passing?that?I?share?the?majority’s?doubt?about?the?propriety?and?value?of?a?questionnaire?for?prospective?jurors?as?extensive?as?that?used?in?this?case.?Particularly?unreasonable?and?offensive?are?interrogatories?probing?the?subject’s?religious?practices?and?beliefs.?Henceforth,?such?questions?should?not?appear.