Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Gerardo Espiritu was charged with forcible rape, forcible oral copulation, and forcible sodomy of a 16-year-old girl. After failing to appear at an arraignment, he fled and was eventually arrested at LAX more than six years later. At trial, the prosecution exercised a peremptory challenge against Prospective Juror No. 183, a recent nursing school graduate who was working in admissions in a medical office and was not yet performing nursing work. Defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7.
Section 231.7, enacted in 2020 and effective in stages thereafter, restricts the use of peremptory challenges in criminal cases to address racial and other forms of bias in jury selection. Subdivision (e) lists certain reasons that are presumptively invalid, including a juror’s occupation, prior negative interactions with law enforcement, and certain demographic characteristics. The party exercising the challenge must overcome the presumption with substantial evidence.
The prosecutor stated the reason for the challenge was that PJ183 was a nurse. Defense counsel objected but did not specifically argue that nursing was an occupation rendering the reason presumptively invalid under section 231.7(e)(10). The trial court overruled the objection without addressing whether the proffered reason was presumptively invalid. Espiritu was convicted and sentenced to nearly 30 years in prison. He appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the trial court’s failure to recognize and address the presumptive invalidity of the prosecutor’s stated reason was reversible error.
Under section 231.7, occupation is one of the categories of reasons listed as presumptively invalid for exercising a peremptory challenge. When a party offers a reason falling within one of these categories, the trial court has an affirmative obligation to consider whether the reason is presumptively invalid before evaluating whether the proponent has overcome the presumption. The trial court’s analysis must appear on the record.
The court rejected the Attorney General’s forfeiture argument. Although defense counsel did not specifically invoke the presumptive invalidity provision, the comprehensive scheme adopted by the Legislature requires the trial court to make a meaningful inquiry into whether any proffered reason may be presumptively invalid. Forfeiture would undermine the statute’s purpose of eliminating bias from jury selection. The trial court’s failure to make any such inquiry, combined with the prosecutor’s stated reason being squarely within the section 231.7(e)(10) occupation category, required reversal regardless of what defense counsel specifically argued at trial.
Because the violation related to a peremptory challenge under section 231.7, the court found reversal was required without applying a traditional harmless error analysis.
Key Takeaways
- Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 imposes affirmative obligations on trial courts to identify potentially presumptively invalid reasons for peremptory challenges and to evaluate whether the presumption has been overcome.
- A juror’s occupation is one of the categories of presumptively invalid reasons under section 231.7(e)(10). Striking jurors based on their employment requires substantial evidence to overcome the presumption.
- Defense counsel’s failure to specifically invoke the presumptive invalidity provisions does not forfeit the issue when the trial court was required to make the inquiry on its own initiative.
- The trial court’s analysis under section 231.7 must appear on the record. A silent record on whether the court considered presumptive invalidity is itself a basis for reversal.
- Violations of section 231.7 generally require reversal without application of the traditional harmless error standard, given the structural nature of the right.
Why It Matters
Section 231.7 represents one of California’s most significant reforms to jury selection in decades. This decision reinforces that the statute requires substantive engagement by trial courts, not just procedural responsiveness to objections. Courts must affirmatively scan proffered reasons for presumptive invalidity, even when defense counsel does not specifically frame the objection that way.
For prosecutors, the opinion is a stark warning that occupational reasons for peremptory challenges (such as nurse, teacher, social worker, or other professions) require careful justification on the record. Going forward, prosecutors should expect trial courts to inquire about presumptive invalidity any time an enumerated reason category is implicated. For defense counsel, the case provides strong support for raising section 231.7 objections even when the specific subdivision is not immediately identified, and for ensuring the trial court’s analysis is preserved on the record.