People v. Parras

California Court of Appeal Aug 30, 1984 No. A013797Published

Before: Elkington

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the prosecutor's exclusion of jurors based on age did not constitute unconstitutional group bias under Wheeler, and that while the defendant could be convicted of multiple offenses arising from a single objective, he could only be punished for the more serious offense.

Issues

Did the prosecutor's systematic exclusion of younger jurors violate the defendant's right to a representative jury under People v. Wheeler?
Did the trial court err in sentencing the defendant for both the lewd conduct and the assault and battery offenses when both were incidental to a single objective?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Wheeler proscribes a jury drawn with “group bias,” which it defines as a bias against persons “merely because they are members of an identifiable group distinguished on racial, religious, ethnic or similar grounds.””

“Where, as argued, two or more crimes are incidental to a common criminal objective, although there may be several convictions, the defendant may be punished only for the more serious offense.”

Opinion

ELKINGTON, Acting P. J.

Defendant Thomas Antonio Parras was found guilty by a jury’s verdicts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a 10-

[877]

year-old child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)) and of a related charge of assault and battery (Pen. Code, §§ 240, 242). He appeals from the judgment which was entered upon the verdicts.

It is first contended by Parras that; “Systematic exclusion of prospective jurors on the sole ground of group bias violated Mr. Parras’ right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community.”

It is argued that: The trial court erroneously denied “Mr. Parras’ motion pursuant to

People

Wheeler

(1978) 22 Cal.3d 258, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 and the resultant mistrial motions premised upon the prosecutor’s

admitted

systematic exclusion of prospective jurors solely because of their age group. . . . Mr. Parras’ counsel made a timely motion pursuant to

Wheeler,

alleging that the prosecutor was systematically challenging the minorities of the jury panel. The trial court then asked the prosecutor to offer argument or explanation for the apparent exclusions. The prosecutor defended his actions as follows:

“Mr. Schon [the prosecutor]: ... As to Mr. Nishimura, my first challenge on voir dire, I thought the gentleman was a little bit too young. . . . He is a very young man, I believe a student. I generally like more mature jurors on my part, and as the court has been aware of, I have been challenging the younger people on this particular panel .... As to Miss Gunter, it was a jury initially that she be an all right juror. Saw the complexion of the jury change, all older people, excluding Miss Gunter. At that point I decided to challenge Miss Gunter because she is the youngest person on the panel, and I like to go with a homogenous jury. The other jurors appeared to be of a more mature status in that they were older, little bit more experienced. I believe Miss Gunter was a little bit young and in general when I do select jurors I prefer more middle aged jury, a jury that I feel is a complexion of the individual to express a little bit more knowledge as to life experiences and in line with that, I decided to challenge Miss Gunter.”

People v. Parras

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief