# People v. Ervin

> California Supreme Court · January 6, 2000 · 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793485

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CURTIS LEE ERVIN, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 6, 2000
- **Citations:** 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 623; 22 Cal. 4th 48; 22 Cal. 48; 2000 Daily Journal DAR 215; 990 P.2d 506; 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 135; 2000 Cal. LEXIS 2
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Chin, Mosk, Kennard
- **Cited by:** 202 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793485

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment.
In addition, I generally concur in the opinion of the court. But, unlike my colleagues, I would “compare ‘[a] prosecutor’s treatment of minority and nonminority prospective jurors’ in reviewing the validity of . . . [peremptory] challenges” under People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 , 583 P.2d 748 ], and Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 [ 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ]. (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1248-1249 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49 , 920 P.2d 1254 ] (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.).) Employing such an approach, I conclude that the peremptory challenges by the prosecutor here were not invalid.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9793485. Public record. Not legal advice.