California Supreme Court’s first decision Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7, presumptively invalid reasons for peremptory strikes of potential jurors

Citation: People v. SanMiguel (Cal., July 30, 2026, No. S287786) 2026 WL 2195752.

Summary: The Court clarified that when a party strikes a potential juror for BEHAVIOR-BASED REASONS under section 231.7(g)–historically connected to racial stereotypes and implicit bias, the trial court must first CONFIRM the observed behavior and then require the striking party to EXPLAIN its relevance to the case (race-neutral reason) in order to overcome the presumption of invalidity for behavior-based reasons.The trial court here failed to get an explanation from the DA. Attempted murder conviction and life sentence reversed and remanded.

Facts

During jury selection in Joel SanMiguel’s criminal trial, the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike prospective juror S.M., whom defense counsel identified as the only remaining Latino man among the relevant prospective jurors. The defense objected under Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7. The prosecutor offered several reasons, including that S.M. gave brief answers, appeared less attentive, looked down, made little eye contact, and entered the courtroom separately from other jurors. The trial court confirmed some of the observed behavior and denied the objection.

Issue

When a party gives a behavior-based reason for a peremptory challenge under section 231.7, must the party both have the behavior confirmed and explain why the behavior matters to the case before the reason can overcome the statute’s presumption of invalidity?

Rule

Under section 231.7, a behavior-based reason for a peremptory challenge—such as inattentiveness, lack of eye contact, demeanor, body language, or confused answers—is presumptively invalid unless the trial court confirms the behavior and the striking party explains why the behavior matters to the case. The explanation requirement is functional, not formulaic: it must provide enough information for the court to evaluate whether an objective observer would view race or another protected status as a factor in the strike.

Holding

The California Supreme Court held that confirmation and explanation are both required to overcome the presumption that a behavior-based reason is invalid. However, failure to overcome that presumption does not automatically invalidate the peremptory challenge; the court must still evaluate all stated reasons and relevant circumstances under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard.

Reasoning

The court explained that behavior-based reasons are especially susceptible to masking conscious or unconscious bias because observations about demeanor, eye contact, attentiveness, or body language can be subjective and culturally variable. Requiring confirmation prevents reliance on misperceived conduct, while requiring an explanation helps reveal the inference counsel is drawing from the conduct. Still, section 231.7 asks whether an objectively reasonable person would view protected status as a factor in the strike, so courts must consider the whole record rather than treating any single behavior-based reason as automatically dispositive.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded. The Court of Appeal had erred by treating S.M.’s perceived lack of attention as sufficient by itself and by failing to conduct the required totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

Key Takeaway

Section 231.7 requires careful scrutiny of behavior-based peremptory challenges. A court must confirm the observed behavior, require counsel to explain its case-related significance, and then decide—based on all stated reasons and circumstances—whether an objective observer would view protected status as a factor in the strike.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.