{"id":283,"date":"2026-02-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=283"},"modified":"2026-02-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-13T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-alston-a169256-section-231-7-explanation-requirement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=283","title":{"rendered":"People v. Alston \u2014 Conviction Reversed Where Trial Court Failed to Explain Reasons for Overruling Section 231.7 Objection to Peremptory Strike"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Alston<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
1st District Court of Appeal, Division Five<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
A169256<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, Peremptory Challenges, Trial Court Explanation Requirement, Internet Sting Operations<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In the unpublished portion of the opinion, the court rejected Alston’s claim that the trial court should have instructed on entrapment.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n