People v. Gore

In People v. Gore (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 692, the trial court expressly found the defendant had made a prima facie case as to the challenged alternates, the trial court asked the prosecutor to explain his reasons for those challenges and, after the prosecutor complied, the trial court denied the Wheeler motion. (Gore, supra, 18 Cal.App.4th at pp. 698-699.) Gore concluded, "the trial court erroneously limited defendant's Wheeler motion to three challenges made during the selection of the alternate jurors, thereby foreclosing all consideration of the People's four peremptory challenges to Hispanic prospective jurors removed during the selection of the panel of 12 jurors." (Gore, at p. 696.) Gore stated, "the trial court should have considered the motion as to all seven challenged Hispanic prospective jurors and not limited its inquiry to only the alternate juror selection process." (Id. at p. 705.) Gore later stated, "On remand the court will necessarily reexamine the validity of the prosecutor's reasons for challenging the three Hispanic alternate jurors in the light of the prosecutor's reasons for challenging the four Hispanic jurors on the regular panel. The court will examine 'the totality of the relevant facts and . . . consider all the relevant circumstances.' ." (Id. at p. 706.) Gore remanded the matter, directing the trial court to assume (1) the Wheeler motion was timely as to all seven challenges and (2) the defendant had established a prima facie case of wrongful exclusions (id. at p. 707), thus placing the burden of proof on the prosecution to justify the challenges. (Ibid.)