What is the current standard for a defendant to demonstrate prejudice after properly preserving a claim that the defense used peremptory challenges to cure the erroneous denial of one or more for-cause challenges?

"Yeoman sets forth the correct standard for a defendant to demonstrate prejudice after properly preserving a claim that the defense used peremptory challenges to cure a trial court's erroneous denial of one or more for-cause challenges." (Black, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 920.) " ' "So long as the jury that sits is impartial, the fact that the defendant had to use a peremptory challenge to achieve that result does not mean" ' a constitutional violation occurred. (People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053, 1096.)" (Id. at p. 917.) " '[P]eremptory challenges are not of constitutional dimension,' but are merely 'a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury.' [Citation.] Mere loss of a peremptory challenge does not automatically constitute a violation of the federal constitutional right to a fair trial and impartial jury. [Citation.] If no biased or legally incompetent juror served on defendant's jury, the judgment against him does not suffer from a federal constitutional infirmity, even if he had to exercise one or more peremptory challenges to excuse prospective jurors whom the court should have excused for cause. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 916-917.) "[A]n erroneous denial of a challenge for cause to one juror is not

Page 43