People v. Jaime

Filed 5/19/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096022

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCCR-CRF- 2020-436) v.

MOISES JAMIE JAIME,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County, Anne Bouliane, Judge. (Retired judge of the S.F. Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed.

William G. Holzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie A. Hokans and Robert Gezi, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1

Before January 1, 2022, trial courts examined peremptory challenges under the three-step inquiry established by Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258. Recognizing the limitations of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 3070 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 3070) to add Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7,1 which creates new procedures for identifying unlawful discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges. Under section 231.7, the party objecting to the peremptory challenge is no longer required to make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. Instead, “upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to [section 231.7],” the party exercising the peremptory challenge must state the reasons for exercising the challenge. (§ 231.7, subd. (c).) Also, certain reasons for a peremptory challenge are presumptively invalid under section 231.7 unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that they are unrelated to the prospective juror’s perceived membership in a protected group and that the reasons bear on the juror’s ability to be fair and impartial. (§ 231.7, subd. (e).) Those presumptively invalid reasons include the prospective juror having a negative experience with law enforcement or having a close relationship with someone who has been convicted of a crime. (§ 231.7, subd. (e)(1), (3).) Here, jury selection for the trial of defendant Moises Jamie Jaime (for two counts of transporting controlled substances and two counts of possessing controlled substances for sale) began two months after section 231.7 became applicable. A prospective juror, whom we will refer to as L., asked to speak privately with the court and parties. In a private hearing, L. disclosed that her “cousin was actually convicted of murder in this court” and that the current district attorney spoke to her class when she was a child and