The trial court erroneously failed to consider whether the prosecution’s challenge to a potential juror because of her occupation as a nurse was a presumptively invalid category under CCP 231.7. Defendant argued, for the first time on appeal, the prosecution’s reason was presumptively invalid under section 231.7 (e)(10). The reviewing court declined to find forfeiture as it would be contrary to the legislative purpose of the statute. Because the trial court failed to consider whether the prosecutor’s reason was presumptively invalid and CCP 231.7 mandates reversal where there is error, the judgment must be reversed and remanded for a new trial. [Editor’s Note: Acting P.J. Moore dissented, noting that the California Constitution requires a determination of whether an error was prejudicial.]

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G063841.PDF