Appellant, William Satele, Reply Brief - California Courts - State of ...

not present them to the trial court. Again, however, this court chose to consider
and rule upon the merits of the defendant's constitutional claims. (People v.
Thornton, supra, 41 Ca1.4th at p. 454.)
In People v. Lewis and Oliver, this court considered the question ofwhether
the trial court erred in granting the prosecution's motion to excuse a prospective
juror based on his views of capital punishment. The defendants claimed the trial
court's ruling violated their right to an impartial sentencing jury under the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments. (People v. Lewis and Oliver, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p.
1006.) The Attorney General argued, as respondent does here, that the defendants
had forfeited their claim by failing to take action at trial. (Id., at p. 1007 fn. 8.)
This court took note that the law was unclear as to whether the defendants' claim
was procedurally barred because it had in fact held otherwise in prior cases. The
Court then held that because the question whether the defendants had preserved
their right to raise the issue on appeal was close and difficult, the Court would
assume that the defendants had preserved that right. (Ibid.; quoting People v.
Champion (1995) 9 Cal.4th 879,908 fn. 6.)
In light of the rules and principles articulated in these cases, appellant's
federal claims regarding the inconsistent finding of personal use of the firearm
have not been forfeited.
Additionally, while a party's failure to object may preclude a party from
asserting the issue, it is not a bar to the issue being resolved by an appellate court
if that court sees a need to resolve the issue. As was stated in People v. Williams
(1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, n. 6,
In Scott [People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331], we held only that a
party cannot raise a "complaint[] about the manner in which the trial
court exercises its sentencing discretion and articulates its supporting
reasons ... for the first time on appeal." (Id at p. 356.) We did not
even purport to consider whether an appellate court may address
such an issue ifit so chooses. Surely, the fact that a party may forfeit
a right to present a claim of error to the appellate court ifhe did not
do enough to "prevent[]" or "correct[]" the claimed error in the trial
23