Jose Gerardo Espiritu was convicted in 2015 of multiple sexual assault charges against a 16-year-old victim and sentenced to nearly three decades in prison. The charges included forcible rape, forcible copulation of a minor, and sodomy by force of a minor. Espiritu fled during proceedings but was arrested by U.S. Marshal Service at Los Angeles International Airport approximately six and a half years later, after which the criminal case resumed.
During jury selection, the prosecution exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude Prospective Juror Number 183, a newly graduated nurse. When defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, the prosecutor stated his reason: 'because she is a nurse.' Justice Delaney wrote that this reason falls under the statute's presumptively invalid category for '[e]mployment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members [of a protected group],' noting that nursing is a profession disproportionately occupied by women.
The court delivered sharp criticism of the trial court's handling of the objection, writing: 'There is no indication in the record the trial court even considered whether the prosecutor's stated reason was potentially subject to a presumption of invalidity. Finding forfeiture under such circumstances would run counter to the comprehensive scheme adopted by the Legislature and the purpose underlying it.'
The case originated when Espiritu was charged with sexual crimes against a minor in March 2015. After his initial arrest and release on bail, Espiritu failed to appear for an arraignment on amended charges, leading to a bench warrant. Superior Court Judge Michael A. Leversen presided over the eventual trial, during which the jury found Espiritu guilty on all counts and found true an age-related allegation.
The state argued that Espiritu forfeited his right to challenge the presumptive invalidity because his counsel failed to specifically identify this issue during jury selection. Justice Delaney rejected this argument, explaining that the statute's comprehensive framework places the burden on trial courts to evaluate whether proffered reasons fall into presumptively invalid categories. 'Part and parcel of a trial court's obligation to evaluate proffered reasons for the exercise of a peremptory challenge is to first make a meaningful inquiry into whether any of the proffered reasons may be presumptively invalid,' the court wrote.
Justice Moore issued a strongly worded dissent, arguing that the majority's reversal conflicts with California's constitutional requirement to analyze whether errors resulted in prejudice. Moore noted the evidence against Espiritu was overwhelming—the victim reported the crime the day it happened, and DNA evidence linked Espiritu to the victim. 'The Legislature has neither the right, nor the power, to amend the California Constitution by statute,' Moore wrote, criticizing section 231.7's automatic reversal provision as unconstitutional.
The ruling reflects California's 2020 reform of peremptory challenge law, which replaced the federal Batson framework with a more stringent standard designed to combat both conscious and unconscious bias. Under section 231.7, certain categories of reasons for excluding jurors are presumptively invalid, and errors in applying the law result in automatic reversal. The case now returns to Orange County Superior Court for a new trial.