People v. Carrington CA4/1

DISCUSSION

I

SECTION 231.

A. Carrington’s Contentions Carrington argues that the trial court prejudicially erred in denying his motion under section 231.7 challenging the prosecution’s use of a peremptory challenge to strike a Hispanic prospective juror. We disagree. B. Background During voir dire, defense counsel asked prospective jurors, including

Prospective Juror No. 8 (PJ8),2 about their thoughts on self-defense. Thereafter, PJ8 and Carrington’s trial counsel engaged in the following exchange: “[PJ8]: I have had to, you know, defend myself before where I was almost going to get killed, and I bashed his head in, and I took off. But really he was the aggressor. He was way bigger than me, my sister’s ex-husband; pretty

The augmented reporter’s transcript does not specify the prosecutive jurors’ assigned numbers. Below, however, the parties and the court addressed the juror in question as “Juror in Seat No. 8” during voir dire and the prosecution’s peremptory challenge. In the opening brief, Carrington refers to this juror as Prospective Juror No. 8. For clarity and consistency, the People did the same in the respondent’s brief. We do so in this opinion as well.…