Espiritu was convicted in 2023 of forcible rape, forcible copulation, and forcible sodomy against a 16-year-old victim in March 2015. He had been arrested, released on bail, and failed to appear for arraignment, remaining 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.
During jury selection, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to excuse Prospective Juror 183, a newly graduated nurse. When defense counsel objected under Section 231.7, the prosecutor said the reason was "because she is a nurse." The trial court overruled the objection without considering whether nursing falls within the statute's presumptively invalid category for "employment in a field that is disproportionately occupied by members" of protected groups.
Justice Delaney, writing for the majority, said the trial court "failed to take that critical, legislatively mandated step" of evaluating potential presumptive invalidity. The opinion said nothing in the record indicated the trial court considered whether the prosecutor's stated reason was subject to a presumption of invalidity.
The Attorney General argued Espiritu forfeited the issue by not raising presumptive invalidity below. The appellate court rejected that 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." Finding forfeiture here, the court added, "would run counter to the comprehensive scheme adopted by the Legislature and the purpose underlying it."
Justice Moore dissented. Moore agreed error occurred but argued the majority should have analyzed whether it was prejudicial rather than automatically reversing, writing that the Legislature lacks the authority to amend the California Constitution by statute through Section 231.7's directive that such errors "shall be deemed prejudicial." Moore also noted that if the error were found non-prejudicial, the victim would not have to testify again before another group of strangers.
Section 231.7 took effect in 2022, replacing the Batson/Wheeler framework in California and shifting the analytical burden in peremptory challenge disputes.