Espiritu was convicted in 2023 of forcible rape, forcible copulation, and forcible sodomy against a 16-year-old victim in March 2015. The crimes allegedly occurred after Espiritu was initially arrested and released on bail, but he failed to appear for arraignment and remained a fugitive for six and a half years until U.S. Marshals delivered him to Los Angeles International Airport. The trial court sentenced him to 26 years in state prison after a jury found him guilty on all counts.
During jury selection, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse Prospective Juror 183, a newly graduated nurse. When defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure Section 231.7, the prosecutor stated his reason was "because she is a nurse." The trial court overruled the objection without considering whether nursing falls under the statute's presumptively invalid category for "employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members" of protected groups.
As Justice Delaney explained, the court "failed to take that critical, legislatively mandated step" of evaluating potential presumptive invalidity. The opinion stated there is no indication in the record that the trial court even considered whether the prosecutor's stated reason was potentially subject to a presumption of invalidity. Because the court failed to take this critical, legislatively mandated step, the appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial.
The court emphasized that finding forfeiture under these circumstances "would run counter to the comprehensive scheme adopted by the Legislature and the purpose underlying it." The Attorney General argued that Espiritu forfeited his right to challenge the presumptive invalidity by failing to raise it in the trial court, but the appellate court rejected this position, explaining that requiring the objecting party to identify presumptive invalidity "would be inconsistent with the detailed process established by the Legislature and its purposeful shift away from an initial affirmative burden on the objecting party."
Justice Moore dissented, agreeing that error occurred but arguing the majority should have analyzed whether the error was prejudicial rather than automatically reversing. Moore wrote that the Legislature has neither the right nor the power to amend the California Constitution by statute, referring to Section 231.7's mandate that peremptory challenge errors "shall be deemed prejudicial." Moore noted concerns that if the error were found non-prejudicial, the victim would not have to go through the shame and humiliation of testifying before another group of total strangers at a new trial.
The decision reflects the ongoing evolution of California's approach to discriminatory jury selection following the 2022 implementation of Section 231.7, which replaced the traditional Batson/Wheeler framework. The Legislature enacted the statute to address perceived shortcomings in combating both conscious and unconscious bias in peremptory challenges.