People v. Aranda

Filed 9/7/23

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G061394

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21CF2274)

SABRINA ARANDA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Sabrina Aranda was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility. During jury selection, the People exercised a challenge for cause against a prospective juror who admitted she would hold police officers to a higher standard of credibility than other witnesses. Aranda objected to the challenge, but the trial court overruled her objection. The jury convicted Aranda, and this appeal followed. Aranda argues that the People’s challenge for cause during jury selection was based on the juror’s general distrust of police officers, that this is a presumptively invalid reason to challenge a juror under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 (section 231.7), and that the trial court prejudicially erred when it overruled her objection to the challenge. This argument fails because section 231.7 applies only to peremptory challenges, not challenges for cause. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTS In December 2018, an Orange County Sheriff’s Department correctional services assistant was stationed as a guard at the Central Women’s Jail in Santa Ana when she saw an inmate take something from her pants and pass it to Aranda, who in turn put it in her own pants. Deputies searched inmate Aranda and found 59 grams of methamphetamine. Aranda was charged with possession of a controlled substance in a correctional facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.6), among other charges. During voir dire, prospective Juror No. 134 (Juror 134) shared that her husband had bad experiences with the court system. When asked if she would give a police officer’s testimony “a leg up,” she responded, “I try to believe they don’t know everything.” Juror 134 later commented that when assessing witness credibility, she would be more critical of police officers, hold them to a higher standard in terms of credibility, and scrutinize them more than she would a layperson. The People challenged Juror 134 for cause. Defense counsel objected, asserting that under recent changes to the law, distrust of law enforcement is a