Is a prospective juror's comment that appellant would be set free if found not guilty by reason of insanity prejudiced the entire jury?

Appellant asserts the prospective juror's comments were equivalent to an improper suggestion that appellant would be set free if found not guilty by reason of insanity. (See People v. Babbit (1988) 45 Cal.3d 660, 704.) He contends the prospective juror's comments biased the jury against his insanity defense and denied him a fair trial on the issue of sanity.

Appellant fails to appreciate that discharge of the venire is a "drastic remedy" and the trial court "possesses broad discretion to determine whether or not possible bias or prejudice against the defendant has contaminated the entire venire to such an extreme that its discharge is required." (People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 889.) Medina explained, "discharging the entire venire is a remedy that should be reserved for the most serious occasions of demonstrated bias or prejudice, where interrogation and removal of the offending venire persons would be insufficient protection for the defendant." (Ibid.) In Medina, prospective jurors made very inflammatory comments (apparently while court was not in session) reflecting prejudgment of the defendant, including " 'even his own lawyers think he's guilty' " and " 'bring the guilty S.O.B. in, we'll give him a trial, and then hang him.' " (Id. at p. 888.) Nevertheless, the trial court did not err in refusing to discharge the entire venire, where it had identified and excused the offending prospective jurors. (Id. at p. 889.)

In the present case, the prospective juror's comments reflected her personal discomfort with serving on the jury. She was excused from service. The issue did not come up again during voir dire, and appellant points to no place in the record suggesting any other juror was influenced by the comments at issue. (See People v. Ramos (2004) 34 Cal.4th 494, 515 ["there is no indication that" prospective juror's remarks "affected the other prospective jurors"].) Appellant has not shown the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to discharge the entire venire.