Trial court errs when it denies a Cal. C. C. P. §231.7 challenge without making findings and stating its reasons.

People v. Alston, 1^st. Dist., Div.5 (02/13/2026)

 

Alston, a black man, was on trial for attempting a lewd act on a minor.  Pen. C. §§288(a)/664.  The sole witness in the case was a policeman.  During jury selection, potential juror Ms. G, a self-described “person of color,” was questioned by the plaintiff about her ability to be fair and impartial in evaluating the testimony of a policeman.  

Plaintiff: So you don’t think you could access [a policeman’s] credibility fairly?

Ms. G.: No, I don’t think so.

Enter the trial court, who attempted to rehabilitate Ms. G.  After reading CALCRIM 226, the jury instruction on assessing witness credibility, to the panel, the court asked Ms. G. whether the instruction helped her set aside her own life experiences and be fair to the police witness.  Ms. G. said, “yes.”

The plaintiff challenged Ms. G. for cause on the basis she was biased against police witnesses.  The trial court denied the challenge, referencing Ms. G.’s final statement on the point.  Plaintiff later used a peremptory on Ms. G.  The defendant objected under Cal. C.C.P. §231.7.  The court then asked the plaintiff to state its reasons for challenging Ms. G.

Plaintiff said the reason was Ms. G.’s initial statements regarding police testimony, which contained statements that she did not think she could be fair to a police witness based upon past experiences and reading about alleged wide-spread police misconduct in a nearby department (not the department for which the police witness worked).  While acknowledging Ms. G.’s final word on the subject was that she could be fair to police witnesses, the plaintiff said it could not just disregard Ms. G.’s several previous statements that she was incapable of being fair to police witnesses.

The defendant countered that a juror’s distrust of police was a presumptively invalid reason and that the plaintiff thus failed to overcome the statutory presumption.  The plaintiff responded that Ms. G.’s expression of distrust of police was not the reason it had given, rather Ms. G.’s stated inability to be fair juror.  The trial court, without explanation, denied the defendant’s objection and excused Ms. G.

The empaneled jury later convicted Alton and he appealed.  The appellate panel reverses and remands for a new trial.

The issue is whether it was error for the trial court to deny defendant’s objection to the plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of Ms. G. without making factual findings or stating its reasons for the denial.  It is not a close call.  Cal. C.C.P. §231.7(d)(1) requires a trial court, in ruling on the objection, to “state its reasons on the record.”  To quote this panel, “[t]he trial court cannot satisfy the statutory mandate to explain its reasons on the record by saying nothing.”  Appellee does not dispute the error is prejudicial and the panel accepts the concession. 

Thus, the error of “saying nothing,” on this record means that Alton’s conviction is reversed and he is to receive a new trial.