People v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 2011 No. No. B229701Published

Before: Epstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion for a separate penalty jury because the reasons provided—potential trial delay and judicial economy—did not satisfy the 'good cause' standard under Penal Code section 190.4, subdivision (c), which requires a showing that the jury is unable to perform its function.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion for a separate penalty jury under Penal Code section 190.4, subdivision (c).
Whether a potential delay in the penalty phase or concerns regarding judicial economy constitute 'good cause' to empanel a separate penalty jury.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Good cause under section 190.4, subdivision (c) has been construed to require facts in the record showing that the jury is unable to perform its function.”

“a delay of the penalty phase does not constitute good cause because it does not by itself impair the jury’s ability to perform its function.”

“Unmoored as it was from the applicable standard for good cause, the court abused its discretion in granting the motion for a separate penalty jury.”

[991]Opinion

EPSTEIN, P. J. The People petition for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s October 28, 2010 order granting Ronald Brim’s motion for a separate penalty jury in a capital murder case. The People contend the trial court abused its discretion under Penal Code section 190.4, subdivision (c). We agree and grant the petition, directing the trial court to vacate its order and issue a new order denying Brim’s motion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Brim and his codefendant Richard Roberson were jointly charged with committing two murders and three attempted murders on September 23, 2008, during a gang-related shooting at the Compton Blue Line train station. Brim was charged separately with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The People are seeking the death penalty for Brim. Brim moved for separate guilt and penalty trials or the empanelment of separate juries in order to voir dire prospective jurors in the guilt and penalty phases differently. On October 28, 2010, the trial court granted the motion for a separate penalty jury not for the reasons advanced by Brim, but because it would take the defense more than a year to investigate 17 alleged prior incidents in aggravation. The People filed a petition for a writ of mandate on December 27, 2010. We issued an alternative writ of mandate, directing the trial court to either vacate its order granting Brim’s motion for a separate penalty jury and issue a new order denying the motion or show cause why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. Brim filed a return.

DISCUSSION

The trial court’s ruling on a motion to empanel a separate jury in a penalty phase of a capital case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Bennett (2009) 45 Cal.4th 577, 599 [88 Cal.Rptr.3d 131, 199 P.3d 535].) Failure to follow the applicable law is an abuse of discretion. (People v. Ibanez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 537, 549 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 536].)

Penal Code1 section 190.4, subdivision (c) provides: “If the trier of fact which convicted the defendant of a crime for which he may be subject to the death penalty was a jury, the same jury shall consider ... the penalty to be applied, unless for good cause shown the court discharges that jury in which case a new jury shall be drawn. The court shall state facts in support of the finding of good cause upon the record and cause them to be entered into the minutes.” This statute expresses a clear legislative intent that the same

People v. Superior Court

AI Brief

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

DISCUSSION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

AI Brief