Turner

Introduction

Defendant Joann Turner appeals from a judgment entered after a jury found her guilty of possessing cocaine base for the purpose of sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5) and possessing marijuana for the purpose of sale (id., § 11359). The trial court thereafter sentenced defendant to state prison for the term prescribed by law. We reverse the judgment.

Statement of Facts *

Contentions*

Discussion

I

Defendant contends the prosecutor improperly exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of group bias, thereby denying defendant certain constitutional rights. We agree in part.

A party may not use peremptory challenges to remove prospective jurors solely on the basis of group bias presumed from the jurors’ membership in “an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic, or *417 similar grounds.” (People v. Fuentes (1991) 54 Cal.3d 707, 713 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 818 P.2d 75 ]; accord, People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 668 [ 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 573 , 941 P.2d 752 ].) The use of peremptory challenges for this reason violates the right to trial by an impartial jury under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. (People v. Wheeler…

I dissent.

I disagree with the majority opinion’s analysis of the Wheeler issue. (People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ].) While the opinion relies on a census showing that nearly half of Inglewood residents are African-Americans, it ignores the other side of the coin—the majority of Inglewood residents are not African-American. Without resorting to census information, I am comfortable with the notion that Inglewood contains residents of many racial and ethnic backgrounds, including Caucasians. That means anyone who distrusts Inglewood residents in general is not focusing on any particular racial or ethnic group. I don’t see how this translates into a racial reason for excusing Inglewood residents from the jury.

The majority opinion editorializes that the prosecutor “protested too much.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 420.) This can be interpreted only as a conclusion that the prosecutor is a racist. I’m sorry to see such a terrible aspersion cast. There is nothing in this record to demonstrate that the prosecutor even knew the racial and ethnic makeup of Inglewood.

I feel it is improper to use race as even a partial reason for exercising a…