Does a prospective juror's written responses indicate that she would not always reject the death penalty?

As the People point out, the prospective juror's responses also raised the possibility that her religious views could have interfered with her ability to sit as a juror. Indeed, she believed [s]omewhat that these views could have a substantial impact on her decision in the case. We need not decide whether these responses alone would have sufficiently buttressed a challenge for cause, though, because we conclude that even if these responses could have been disqualifying in the absence of any contrary responses, the prospective juror's other responses in this case also mattered. At most, the prospective juror's concerns about the death penalty created an ambiguity when considered together with the juror's other responses. (See People v. Avila, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 533, 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 133 P.3d 1076 [analyzing the prospective juror's written responses taken together].) Not only did the juror's responses indicate that she would not always or automatically reject the death penalty, but she also answered Yes to the question that directly address [ed] the pertinent constitutional issue in Witt i.e., whether the prospective juror could temporarily set aside his or her personal beliefs and follow the court's instructions in determining penalty. (People v. McKinnon, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 645, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 590, 259 P.3d 1186.)

[1 Cal.5th 40]