California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Espiritu is that when a trial court fails to make a meaningful inquiry into whether proffered reasons for exercising peremptory challenges fall into presumptively invalid categories under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, the defendant's initial objection under the statute preserves appellate review of that procedural failure, under circumstances where defense counsel objected to a peremptory challenge but did not specifically identify the potential presumptive invalidity below.

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

Defendant Appellant was Jose Gerardo Espiritu — the criminal defendant convicted of sexual assault crimes against a minor who objected to prosecutor's peremptory challenge of a prospective juror.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution who exercised peremptory challenge against prospective juror identifying as a nurse.

The suit sounded in criminal sexual assault prosecution. No cross-claims applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Espiritu was charged with forcible rape, forcible copulation, and sodomy by force against a 16-year-old girl in March 2015, with DNA evidence found on both victim and defendant.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court overruled defendant's objection under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 to prosecutor's peremptory challenge of Prospective Juror 183 (a nurse), ruling that the prosecutor's stated reason that "she is a nurse" was acceptable without considering whether this reason was presumptively invalid under subdivision (e)(10) as employment in a field disproportionately occupied by women.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether defendant forfeited his right to argue the prosecutor's reason was presumptively invalid under section 231.7(e)(10) by failing to raise this specific argument below. 2. Whether the trial court's failure to consider potential presumptive invalidity constitutes reversible error.

The Appellate Court held that defendant did not forfeit his argument because the trial court failed to fulfill its obligation under section 231.7's comprehensive scheme to meaningfully inquire whether proffered reasons fall into presumptively invalid categories, and this procedural failure requires reversal and remand for new trial under the statute's mandatory reversal provision.

The case is inapplicable when the trial court expressly considers and determines that proffered reasons are not presumptively invalid, or when defense counsel remains silent or denies applicability of presumptively invalid categories when expressly asked, or when counsel fails to mention particular categories during presumptive invalidity discussions.

The case leaves open whether objecting parties may forfeit presumptive invalidity arguments in other circumstances, such as by remaining silent when expressly asked about presumptively invalid matters, and whether the nursing profession is definitively established as disproportionately occupied by women for purposes of section 231.7(e)(10).