How have the courts treated defense counsel's objections to a jury questionnaire at trial?

Preliminarily, the People argue that defense counsel's willingness to do away with or significantly limit use of a jury questionnaire at trial constitutes invited error. Although defense counsel did agree to dispose of the questionnaire, the trial court rejected this approach and proceeded to create a questionnaire with the input of both parties. The record therefore does not establish that " defense counsel intentionally caused the trial court to err, " and no invited error appears. ( People v. Coffman and Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 49, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 710, 96 P.3d 30.)

The People also contend that defendant forfeited claimed inadequacies in the jury questionnaire by failing to object to them. Defendant argues that the defense continued objecting to the questionnaire and attempted to question jurors about the effect of young victims on their decisionmaking. In this context, defense counsel's concession to using the questionnaire after his efforts to limit and amend it failed does not forfeit defendant's claim that the trial court erred in omitting proposed defense questions. ( People v. Landry (2016) 2 Cal.5th 52, 83, 211 Cal.Rptr.3d 160, 385 P.3d 327.)

A trial court's discretion regarding the scope of voir dire extends to the wording of the questionnaire. (

[278 Cal.Rptr.3d 68]