The court held in People v. Espiritu, G063841, that the trial court erred when it overruled a defense objection to the prosecutor's strike of a prospective juror without examining whether the stated reason — "because she is a nurse" — triggered protections under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7.
Jose Gerardo Espiritu was charged in 2015 with forcible rape, forcible copulation, and forcible sodomy of a minor after prosecutors alleged he sexually assaulted a 16-year-old girl. He fled after his initial arrest and arraignment, and U.S. Marshals apprehended him at Los Angeles International Airport six and a half years later. He was subsequently convicted on charges carrying a sentence of 26 years in prison.
During jury selection, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to remove prospective juror 183, a recently graduated nurse whose father was serving a life sentence for murder.
Defense counsel objected under Section 231.7, which lists 13 presumptively invalid reasons for peremptory challenges, including "employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members" of protected groups. The trial court overruled the objection without conducting the analysis the statute requires.
"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.
The panel also rejected the prosecution's argument that Espiritu forfeited his claim by not specifically raising the presumptive invalidity issue at trial. "Finding forfeiture under such circumstances would run counter to the comprehensive scheme adopted by the Legislature and the purpose underlying it," the court wrote.
Under Section 231.7, erroneous denial of an objection requires automatic reversal. The case now returns to Orange County Superior Court for a new trial.