Reported / Citable
Background
Marilyn Northington and her boyfriend were prosecuted after their five-week-old child died with severe malnutrition and multiple injuries. A jury acquitted Northington of murder but convicted her of involuntary manslaughter, assault on a child causing death, and child abuse. The court imposed 25 years to life on the assault count and stayed punishment on the others.
During jury selection, Northington objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 when the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge against a Black prospective juror. The court released the juror before hearing the prosecutor’s reasons and then denied the objection. Northington also challenged the evidence supporting assault at the close of the prosecution’s case and argued that the jury received the narrower circumstantial-evidence instruction.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed. On the record existing when Northington made her acquittal motion, the evidence did not permit a finding that she personally used force against the child or aided and abetted her boyfriend’s assault. Later defense evidence could not cure that deficiency. The appellate court therefore directed entry of an acquittal on the assault count, rather than a retrial on that charge.
The court also held that the section 231.7 objection was erroneously denied. Once an objection is made, the statute requires the court to hear the challenging party’s reasons and determine whether bias may have played a role. Excusing the juror first eliminated the statute’s preferred remedies, including reseating that juror. Administrative convenience did not justify bypassing the sequence, and section 231.7 mandates reversal for an erroneous denial. The manslaughter and child-abuse counts may be retried.
For retrial, the court instructed that CALCRIM No. 224 applies because circumstantial evidence concerned acts and other elements, not merely mental state. CALCRIM No. 225 is appropriate only when intent or mental state is the sole element substantially proved circumstantially.
Key Takeaways
- A section 231.7 objection must be resolved before the challenged prospective juror is excused.
- Courts should preserve the ability to reseat a juror by delaying a recess or keeping the juror available.
- Sufficiency on a midtrial acquittal motion is measured using evidence admitted when the motion was made.
- CALCRIM No. 224, not No. 225, governs when circumstantial proof reaches elements beyond intent.
Why It Matters
Trial lawyers should object immediately to a peremptory challenge and insist that the statutory procedure be completed before the juror leaves. The opinion treats the order of operations as substantive, because premature release can destroy an available remedy. Counsel should make a clear record of the objection, the juror’s status, and any practical way to keep reseating possible.
Criminal practitioners should also frame acquittal motions around the exact state of the proof at the close of the prosecution’s case. If later defense evidence fills a gap, that does not retroactively supply evidence for the earlier ruling. Instruction requests should separately identify which elements depend on circumstantial evidence.
The remedies point deserves attention during fast-moving voir dire. A court can pause before announcing the excusal, take an early recess while keeping the juror at the courthouse, or tell the juror to remain reachable until the objection is decided. Those modest steps preserve the statutory options without needlessly inconveniencing the panel. Appellate counsel should document precisely when the juror was released, when reasons were requested, and which remedies remained possible at each stage.