Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 to the prosecutor’s exercise of a peremptory challenge during voir dire.
First Holding:
Section 231.7(a), prohibits the use of a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror’s race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation, or the perceived membership of the prospective juror in any of those groups.
The statute specifies the process that must be followed if a party or the trial court objects to the use of a peremptory challenge. Two different subdivisions of the statute provide lists of presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge and specify the processes that must be followed if such reasons are asserted in a section 231.7 scenario.
Relevant here, subdivision (g) lists three categories of presumptively invalid reasons that have historically been associated with improper discrimination in jury selection. Those reasons are presumptively invalid unless the trial court is able to confirm that the asserted behavior occurred, based on the court’s own observations or those of counsel for the objecting party.
Authority:
CCP 231.7
Second Holding:
On appeal, we review the overruling of a section 231.7 objection de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. We may only consider those reasons given by the party exercising the peremptory challenge and those factual findings expressly made by the trial court. If we conclude the trial court erred by overruling an objection, that error shall be deemed prejudicial, the judgment shall be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Authority:
CCP 231.7(j)
Third Holding:
An appellate court will ordinarily not consider procedural defects or erroneous rulings, in connection with relief sought or defenses asserted, where an objection could have been, but was not, presented to the lower court by some appropriate method.
But that rule is not automatic. Further, courts have recognized there are circumstances in which it should not apply. Among those circumstances are when its application would be incompatible with the fundamental purposes of a statutory scheme.
Authority:
People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589–590
In re L.C. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 728, 738,
In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889 [pure question of law]
In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 [conflict with due process]
Fourth Holding:
As explained in Espiritu, the Legislature enacted section 231.7 in response to shortcomings of the inquiry under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, overruled in part in Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162.
Whereas Batson/Wheeler targets purposeful discrimination only, section 231.7 aims to eliminate purposeful and unconscious bias. And, whereas Batson/Wheeler employs a largely deferential burden shifting evaluation which places the ultimate burden of persuasion on the objecting party, section 231.7 sets forth a comprehensive process that expressly imposes virtually all burdens on the party exercising the peremptory challenge or the trial court.
Authority:
CCP 231.7
People v. Espiritu (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1139
People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602
People v. Lomax (2010) 49 Cal.4th 530, 569
Fifth Holding:
Although not expressly stated in the statute, it logically flows from the legislative purpose and established scheme that the first required step in such an evaluation is to consider whether any of the reasons fall into a presumptively invalid category listed in subdivision (e) or subdivision (g).
Stated differently, the presumptively invalid categories embody circumstances in which the Legislature has declared the court must presume an objectively reasonable person would view membership or perceived membership in a listed group as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, unless the party exercising the challenge overcomes the presumption in the statutorily specified manner.
Authority:
People v. Caparrotta (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 874, 893 [after party objects under sec. 237.1, it is trial court’s responsibility to apply correct procedure to decide whether to sustain objection]
Sixth Holding:
(Gary note: The opinion then sets forth the specifics of the questions and answers and exercise of the peremptory challenge. Those details are unnecessary in this type of summary that focuses on the principles relied on rather than specific application, so I have chosen to omit them. Having found error in overruling the defense objection to the exercise, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Erroneously overruled objections under section 231.7 are not subject to harmless error analysis.)
Authority:
People v. Aguilar (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 1, 10