People v. SanMiguel

Procedural Issue

Peremptory challenges — behavior-based reasons under Code Civ. Proc. § 231.7, subdivision (g)

Holding

In its first opinion construing Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7's behavior-based peremptory-challenge provisions (subdivision (g)), the California Supreme Court held two things. First, to overcome the statutory presumption that a demeanor- or behavior-based reason for a peremptory strike is invalid, the striking party must do more than have the court confirm the behavior occurred — counsel must also explain why that specific behavior matters to the case being tried; a bare, confirmed observation that a juror was 'less engaged' or 'less attentive' than other jurors, without more, does not satisfy subdivision (g)(2). Second, whether a behavior-based reason overcomes that presumption is not itself dispositive of the ultimate section 231.7(d)(1) inquiry — courts must still weigh any other reasons given and the totality of the circumstances (including the factors listed in subdivision (d)(3)) to decide whether an objectively reasonable person would view race or other protected status as a factor in the strike. Because the Court of Appeal treated a confirmed-but-unexplained attentiveness observation as both curing the presumption and independently dispositive, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings applying both principles under section 231.7's de novo standard of review.

Why It Matters

Section 231.7 governs peremptory challenges in every California jury trial (civil and criminal) where selection began on or after January 1, 2022, so this reaches well beyond criminal practice. Attorneys relying on a demeanor- or attentiveness-based strike need to put an explicit, on-the-record explanation of why that behavior bears on the juror's ability to serve in this case — not just get the court to confirm the behavior happened. Trial courts overruling a section 231.7 objection should likewise make express findings addressing both steps (confirmation-plus-explanation, and the totality-of-the-circumstances weighing), since the statute requires de novo appellate review and forbids appellate courts from imputing unstated findings or speculating about reasons not given below. Given the automatic-reversal remedy under subdivision (j) for an erroneously denied objection, getting this two-step analysis right on the record at the trial level is high-stakes for either side defending a strike on appeal.

About This Entry

Court: Supreme Court of California
Topic: Civil Procedure
Month: September 2026
Publication status: Published
Last verified: 2026-09-02

Using this website or submitting a conflict check does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not extend, suspend, stay, or otherwise affect any legal, trial-court, appellate, or other deadline or proceeding.