Reported / Citable
Background
Detective Jeffrey Agostinho conducted an undercover online sting operation, posing as ‘Jimena R.’ (an 18-year-old female) on the Tagged app. Randall Alston messaged the profile, and after Agostinho purported to disclose that ‘Jimena’ was almost 14 years old, Alston continued sexually explicit communication, sent a video of himself masturbating, and arranged to meet for sexual acts. Alston was arrested at the meeting place. A jury convicted him of attempted lewd act on a child and other offenses, and he was placed on formal probation.
During jury selection, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges on three prospective jurors. Defense counsel objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The trial court overruled at least one of the objections without articulating the reasons for doing so. Alston appealed, raising the section 231.7 issue and a separate entrapment-instruction claim.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed in the published portion of the opinion. Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7(d)(1) requires the trial court, when overruling an objection to a peremptory challenge, to explain on the record the reasons for its ruling. The trial court did not do so for one of the three challenged peremptories. That statutory failure is itself reversible error and requires retrial. The court did not need to determine whether the underlying peremptory strike would have survived a properly conducted section 231.7 analysis; the bare absence of the trial court’s explanation was enough.
The court emphasized that the explanation requirement is more than a formality. It ensures meaningful appellate review and signals to all parties that the trial court engaged seriously with the objection. Without an explanation, the appellate court cannot evaluate whether the court applied the correct legal framework or weighed the proper factors.
In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court rejected Alston’s claim that the trial court should have instructed on entrapment.
Key Takeaways
- Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7(d)(1) requires trial courts to explain on the record the reasons for overruling objections to peremptory challenges; failure to do so is reversible error.
- The explanation requirement is independent of any substantive analysis of the strike; it cannot be cured by appellate review of the bare record.
- Trial courts conducting jury selection in cases governed by section 231.7 should make findings on the record for every objection ruling, even when overruling appears straightforward.
- Defense counsel should preserve the objection by requesting an explanation if the court overrules without articulation.
- The decision reinforces a series of recent published opinions (including the People v. Aguilar decision earlier this year) putting teeth into section 231.7’s procedural requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision is part of a now-clear pattern of California appellate courts strictly enforcing section 231.7’s procedural requirements. The statute imposes specific obligations on trial courts conducting jury-selection proceedings — including providing explanations for rulings on objections — and the appellate courts will reverse convictions when those obligations are not met, even when the underlying ruling might have been substantively defensible.
For California criminal trial courts, the practical lesson is to make detailed, on-the-record findings whenever a section 231.7 objection is raised — both when sustaining and when overruling it. For defense and prosecution counsel, the case is a reminder to focus voir-dire records on whether the trial court actually engaged with the objection and articulated reasoning. Civil litigators should note that section 231.7 expanded to certain civil cases as of January 1, 2026, so the same procedural rigor will soon be required in those proceedings.