People v. Smith

12 Citing cases

  1. People v. Dominguez

    No. G062521 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 8, 2024)

    The inability or reluctance to follow the single-witness instruction is a permissible reason for a peremptory challenge. (People v. Bryant (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 525, 540-542 (Bryant); People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 873-874 (Smith).)

  2. People v. Lake

    D074304 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    We rely on the trial court's contemporaneous observations of voir dire, its experience as a bench officer and its knowledge of the attorneys and of the common practices of the district attorney's office. (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 869.) C. Analysis

  3. The People v. Hurtado

    No. B320551 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 27, 2023)

    [Citation.]" (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 870, italics omitted.)

  4. People v. Jones

    No. A160344 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2023)

    In sum, the prosecutor's explanations for excusing all three prospective jurors, A., M., and G., are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 870; People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 175.)

  5. People v. Lee

    No. A160340 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023)

    In sum, the prosecutor's explanations for excusing all three prospective jurors, A., M., and G., are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 870; People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 175.) Because none of those explanations lacked inherent plausibility or were contradicted by the record, we defer to the trial court's determination the prosecution was not motivated by a discriminatory purpose.

  6. People v. Ardoin

    No. A157429 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2021)

    ; People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 878 [current caselaw has repeatedly held that a negative experience by a close relative of juror with the criminal justice system is a bona fide, genuine, and race-neutral reason to excuse the juror].) A.C. stated her brother, with whom she was close, had received unfair treatment in a criminal proceeding in Redding and was still serving a long term of incarceration.

  7. People v. Wells

    No. C089736 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2021)

    For example, the People excused jurors because of concerns arising from their negative experiences with the criminal justice system. (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 441-442 (Winbush) 13 [arrest by and low opinion of same department that investigated the instant case]; People v. Williams (2013) 58 Cal.4th 197, 282-287 [African-Americans unfairly treated by justice system and relatives were unjustly prosecuted]; People v. Scott (2015) 61 Cal.4th 363, 385 [same district attorney had prosecuted prospector juror's son with help from same investigator; she thought prosecution was racially motivated and was upset about it]; People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 873, 877, 879 [belief criminal justice system was flawed].) The People also excused jurors who had relationships with perpetrators alleged to have committed sexual related crimes because of the possibility that they would sympathize with defendant.

  8. People v. Navarro

    No. C087120 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 19, 2021)

    While we may disagree with the trial court that the prosecutor's reason for excusing Mr. R. required more analysis than Ms. W. and Ms. J., that the court did so provides further supports for our conclusion that the court's evaluation of the prosecutor's reasons for challenging these three jurors was sincere and reasoned. (See Melendez, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 15; People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 871-872.) On this record, we find no Batson/Wheeler error.

  9. People v. Naranjo

    2d Crim. No. B299429 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2021)

    And a potential juror's reluctance to follow the law is a "valid, race-neutral reason[] for exercising a peremptory challenge." (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 873.) 6. Prospective Juror 2722

  10. People v. Amos

    No. A156783 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2021)

    "If, under the second stage of a Batson/Wheeler analysis, a prosecutor is asked to justify his or her conduct in exercising peremptory challenges, that prosecutor must provide a ' " ' "clear and reasonably specific" ' " ' explanation of his or her ' " ' "legitimate reasons" ' " ' for exercising the challenges." (People v. Smith (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 860, 868.) " 'The prosecutor's justification does not have to support a challenge for cause, and even a trivial reason, if genuine and race neutral, is sufficient.