Uriostegui

People v. Uriostegui

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 5, 2024B325200California3,545 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Jury selection Uriostegui’s jury trial commenced in November 2022. During voir dire, the trial court asked prospective juror T.N. to provide “basic information.” T.N. provided her name, which had

2 The facts underlying defendant’s offenses are not necessary to the issues on appeal.

2 a Spanish surname. She said, “I work at Taco Bell” but “I am not currently working because of an injury.” She also said she had no military service or prior jury service. She added that she “ha[d] two family members that ha[d] been convicted of a crime, but [was] not close with them.” In response to questioning by Uriostegui’s counsel, T.N. stated she would not need the defense “to prove anything,” she did not need the defendant to testify to find him not guilty, and it was “perfectly fine” for the defendant to use an interpreter. The prosecutor did not ask T.N. any questions about these issues. Outside the presence of the other jurors, T.N. disclosed that her mother was convicted of a crime and her father was sent to prison. These convictions occurred about eight years earlier. T.N. told the court that having close family members convicted of crimes would “absolutely…

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.