Skip to content
Name: People v. Uriostegui (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 271
Case #: B325200
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 04/05/2024

A peremptory challenge violates Penal Code section 231.7 when a facially neutral reason to remove a juror is based on a presumptively invalid reason, absent certain permitted reasons and findings by the trial court. Appellant was charged with residential burglary. During voir dire, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss T.N., who had a Spanish surname, because of her “lack of life experience,” reasoning that T.N. was young, had worked at Taco Bell, was not currently employed, and seemed reluctant, timid, and malleable. The defense objected, arguing that the reasons were invalid under section 231.7. The trial court denied…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534
Case #: D081267
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/03/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 2/6/2024

Defendant did not demonstrate that the prosecutor improperly exercised a peremptory challenge as to a prospective juror in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. Prospective Juror Number 8 was a Latina who worked as a secretary for a school district. During voir dire, she stated she believed the law was imposed differently depending on a person’s skin color. Defense counsel objected under section 237.1 when the prosecutor sought to dismiss Juror No. 8 using a peremptory challenge. The prosecutor provided the following reasons for the challenge: (1) Juror No. 8’s beliefs about the racial bias of law enforcement officers;…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768
Case #: H050117
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/23/2023

Prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror based on his failure to answer questions, his confusion about questions, and his evasiveness did not violate Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. Following a jury trial, Ortiz was convicted of felony offenses. On appeal, he argued the trial court erred by overruling his section 231.7 objection to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror, S.H. Held: Affirmed. The prosecutor’s reasons for challenging S.H. triggered an inquiry under section 231.7(g), which contains a list of presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge related…

View Full Summary