Covarrubias

Covarrubias v. Superior Court of Monterey Cty.

Bad Law

1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 34·60 Cal. App. 2d 1168·60 Cal. App. 4th 1168·71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 91·98 Daily Journal DAR 547

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 15, 1998H016554California6,478 words

Opinion

Elia, J.

In this case, we determine whether section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure, added by the June 5, 1990, adoption of Proposition 115, abrogates the holding in Hovey v. Superior Court (1980) 28 Cal.3d 1 [ 168 Cal.Rptr. 128 , 616 P.2d 1301 ]. As we explain, we conclude section 223 abrogates Hovey's requirement of individual sequestered voir dire during the death qualification portion of a capital case. Section 223 does not require individual sequestered voir dire but leaves the matter to the trial court’s discretion. Because the trial court here did not exercise this discretion, we will issue the peremptory writ of mandate.

Facts and Procedural Background

Petitioner Daniel Covarrubias is charged with three counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187), with multiple murder and felony-murder special circumstances (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17)), and with murder by lying-in wait (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(15)). Petitioner is also charged with the attempted murder of an infant (Pen. Code, § 664/187, subd. (a)), three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 212.5, subd. (a)), burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and conspiracy (Pen.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.