Amended in Assembly February 29, 2016

California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 1766

Introduced by Assembly Member Mark Stone

February 3, 2016

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 1766, as amended, Mark Stone. Examination of prospective jurors.

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.

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, 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, in civil and criminal trials, require the court and counsel for each party to address a prospective juror using a number assigned by the court or by the begin delete potential end delete begin insert prospective end insert juror’s first name and last initial. 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 begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert shall examine the prospective jurors. Upon
completion of the begin delete trial judge’s end delete begin insert court’s end insert 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 begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert 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 begin delete trial judge’s end delete begin insert court’s end insert examination shall
not preclude additional nonrepetitive or nonduplicative questioning
in the same area by counsel.

(b) To help facilitate the jury selection process, the begin delete trial judge end delete
begin insert court end insert in civil trials 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, a prospective
juror shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party
by a number assigned by the court or by the begin delete potential end delete begin insert prospective end insert
juror’s first name and last initial.

(c) The begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert 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 begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert in
the begin delete trial judge’s end delete begin insert court’s end insert sound discretion. In exercising begin delete his or her end delete
begin insert its end insert sound discretion as to the form and subject matter of voir dire
questions, the begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert 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 begin delete trial
judge end delete begin insert court end insert shall not establish a blanket policy of a time limit for
voir dire.

(e) The begin delete trial judge end delete begin insert court end insert 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 begin delete trial judge’s end delete begin insert court’s end insert 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, a prospective
juror shall be addressed by the court and counsel for each party
by a number assigned by the court or by the begin delete potential end delete begin insert prospective end insert
juror’s first name and last initial.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) The begin delete trial end delete 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.