California Legal Brief

The Rule of *People v. Alston* is that under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, a trial court must expressly explain its reasons on the record when ruling on an objection to a peremptory challenge, including making findings on whether presumptively invalid reasons were rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, under circumstances where the prosecutor's stated reasons for the challenge include distrust of law enforcement by a prospective juror who is a member of a cognizable group.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Contra Costa County.

Defendant Appellant was Randall Oscar-Kelly Alston — the defendant convicted of attempted lewd acts on a child and related offenses who challenged peremptory strikes of prospective jurors.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution in this criminal case involving charges for meeting a minor for lewd purposes based on an undercover police operation.

The suit sounded in criminal law involving charges of meeting a minor for lewd purposes, attempted lewd act on a child, contact with a minor for sexual offense, and showing pornography to a minor.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Alston contacted what he believed was an 18-year-old female on a social networking app, but was actually communicating with an undercover detective. After the detective disclosed "Jimena" was 13 years old, Alston continued the conversation, sent a pornographic video, arranged to meet for sexual purposes, and was arrested upon arriving at the meeting location.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied defense counsel's objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a Latina prospective juror (Ms. G.) who had expressed distrust of law enforcement, ruling without providing any explanation or findings on the record.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court violated section 231.7 by overruling defendant's objection to peremptory challenges without explaining its reasons 2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to give an entrapment instruction

The Appellate Court held the trial court prejudicially erred by failing to explain its reasons for denying the section 231.7 objection, where the prosecutor's stated reason included the presumptively invalid reason of the prospective juror's distrust of law enforcement, and the court was required to make findings on whether this presumption was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence and conduct a totality of circumstances analysis.

The case is inapplicable when the trial court provides any explanation for its ruling under section 231.7, or when the prosecutor's stated reasons do not include any presumptively invalid reasons under the statute.

The case leaves open how much detail is required in a trial court's explanation under section 231.7, and whether appellate courts may independently review explanation requirements in other subdivisions of the statute beyond subdivision (d).