Bill Text: CA AB1766 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended

California Assembly Bill 1766 (Prior Session Legislation)

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

Bill Title: Examination of prospective jurors.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Vetoed) 2016-08-30 - Consideration of Governor's veto pending. [AB1766 Detail]

Download: California-2015-AB1766-Amended.html

BILL NUMBER: AB 1766	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  AUGUST 2, 2016
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MARCH 30, 2016
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  FEBRUARY 29, 2016

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Mark Stone

                        FEBRUARY 3, 2016

   An act to amend  Sections 222.5   Section
  222.5 of,  and  to amend, repeal, and add Section
 223 of  ,  the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to
jurors.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1766, as amended, Mark Stone. Examination of prospective
jurors.
   (1) In civil trials, existing law requires a trial judge to
examine prospective jurors, and, upon completion of the judge's
examination, grants counsel for each party the right to examine, by
oral and direct questioning, any prospective juror in order to enable
counsel to intelligently exercise peremptory challenges and
challenges for cause. Existing law provides that the judge in civil
trials should provide the parties with both the alphabetical list and
the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be
called.
   This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
   (2) Under existing law, which was enacted by initiative measure,
in a criminal case, the court is required to conduct the examination
of prospective jurors, except that the court may permit the parties,
upon a showing of good cause, to conduct a further inquiry. The
initiative measure provides that it may be amended by a measure
enacted by a 2/3 vote of each house.
   This bill would,  until January 1, 2022,  in criminal
trials, require the court to provide the complete names of
prospective jurors to counsel for each party, as specified. The bill
would also require the court and counsel for each party to address a
prospective juror using a number assigned by the court, by the
prospective juror's first name and first initial of his or her last
name, or by his or her title and last name, as determined by the
court in each criminal trial. The bill would also make nonsubstantive
changes to these provisions.
   Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated
local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  Section 222.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended
to read:
   222.5.  (a) To select a fair and impartial jury in civil jury
trials, the court shall examine the prospective jurors. Upon
completion of the court's initial examination, counsel for each party
shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any
of the prospective jurors so that counsel may intelligently exercise
both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. During any
examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the court should
permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or
prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case.
The fact that a topic has been included in the court's examination
should not preclude additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative
questioning in the same area by counsel.
   (b) To help facilitate the jury selection process, the court in
civil trials should provide to counsel for each party the complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the order
in which they will be called.
   (c) The court should allow a brief opening statement by counsel
for each party before the commencement of the oral questioning phase
of the voir dire process.
   (d) The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be
within reasonable limits prescribed by the court in the court's sound
discretion. In exercising its sound discretion as to the form and
subject matter of voir dire questions, the court should consider,
among other criteria, any unique or complex elements, legal or
factual, in the case and the individual responses or conduct of
jurors that may evince attitudes inconsistent with suitability to
serve as a fair and impartial juror in the particular case. Specific
unreasonable or arbitrary time limits shall not be imposed in any
case. The court shall not establish a blanket policy of a time limit
for voir dire.
   (e) The court should permit counsel to conduct voir dire
examination without requiring prior submission of the questions
unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning. For
purposes of this section, an "improper question" is any question
that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the
prospective jurors to a particular result, indoctrinate the jury, or
question the prospective jurors concerning the pleadings or the
applicable law. A court shall not arbitrarily or unreasonably refuse
to submit reasonable written questionnaires, the contents of which
are determined by the court in its sound discretion, when requested
by counsel. If a questionnaire is used, the parties should be given
reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires
before oral questioning commences.
   (f) In civil cases, the court may, upon stipulation by counsel for
all the parties appearing in the action, permit counsel to examine
the prospective jurors outside the court's presence.
  SEC. 2.  Section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure is amended to
read:
   223.  (a) In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial
examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the
prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as
it deems proper.
   (b) The court shall provide to counsel for each party the complete
names of the prospective jurors, both alphabetically and in the
order in which they will be called. However, the court, in each
criminal trial, shall determine a uniform manner by which each
prospective juror shall be addressed by the court and counsel for
each party, according to one of the following:
   (1) An identification number assigned by the court.
   (2) The prospective juror's first name and the first initial of
his or her last name.
   (3) The prospective juror's title and last name.
   (c) Before examining prospective jurors, the court shall advise
them that, in accordance with state law, the court and counsel for
each party are prohibited, in all criminal cases, from addressing
prospective jurors by their full names during jury selection, and are
required to address each prospective juror by an identification
number, by his or her first name and the first initial of his or her
last name, or by his or her title and last name.
   (d) Upon completion of the court's initial examination, counsel
for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct
questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court may, in
the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct questioning
of prospective jurors by counsel. The court may specify the maximum
amount of time that counsel for each party may question an individual
juror, or may specify an aggregate amount of time for each party,
which can then be allocated among the prospective jurors by counsel.
   (e) Voir dire of prospective jurors shall, where practicable,
occur in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases,
including death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors
shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for
cause.
   (f) The court's exercise of its discretion in the manner in which
voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time which
will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors by
counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of the
exercise of challenges for cause, shall not cause any conviction to
be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of
the California Constitution.
   (g) This section does not limit public access to juror
information, as provided for under Section 237. 
   (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2022, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2022, deletes or extends
that date. 
   SEC. 3.    Section 223 is added to the  
Code of Civil Procedure   , to read:  
   223.  (a) In a criminal case, the court shall conduct an initial
examination of prospective jurors. The court may submit to the
prospective jurors additional questions requested by the parties as
it deems proper. Upon completion of the court's initial examination,
counsel for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and
direct questioning, any or all of the prospective jurors. The court
may, in the exercise of its discretion, limit the oral and direct
questioning of prospective jurors by counsel. The court may specify
the maximum amount of time that counsel for each party may question
an individual juror, or may specify an aggregate amount of time for
each party, which can then be allocated among the prospective jurors
by counsel. Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where
practicable, occur in the presence of the other jurors in all
criminal cases, including death penalty cases. Examination of
prospective jurors shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of
challenges for cause.
   (b) The trial court's exercise of its discretion in the manner in
which voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time
which will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors by
counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of the
exercise of challenges for cause, shall not cause any conviction to
be reversed unless the exercise of that discretion has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of
the California Constitution.
   (c) This section is operative on and after January 1, 2022.