Opinion

After receiving a prison term for his second felony indecent exposure conviction, Alan Mark Boulerice appeals, contending that the jury *468selection provisions of Proposition 115 which prohibit the parties from questioning prospective jurors violate the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. He also complains that the trial court erred in allowing inadmissible character evidence, and that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during closing argument. We disagree and affirm.

1. Facts

On March 20, 1990, over the course of the afternoon, 21-year-old Brooklyn Stover, an employee at Shopper’s Comer Market in Santa Cmz, had been in and out of the parking lot retrieving shopping carts. She saw a car parked in the lot for about an hour. At one point, appellant was sitting in the driver’s seat. When she passed near it about 3:45 p.m., however, appellant was sitting in the backseat with no pants on. His penis was erect and he was “[k]ind of playing with it.” Annoyed and bothered, she called the police. Officer Jim Connor arrived 10 minutes later, approached the car and saw appellant, who was wearing a white T-shirt and shorts, sitting on the left side of the backseat near the only open window, masturbating. When Connor and appellant “made eye contact, [appellant] immediately put his penis back in his shorts and attempted to cover himself.”

Appellant was charged with indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. 1), a felony, based on the allegation that he had been convicted of indecent exposure twice as misdemeanors and once as a felony. The information further alleged that appellant had previously served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)), and charged a violation of probation in Santa Cmz County Superior Court No. CR-1945.

Appellant was convicted of the charge at jury trial. He waived jury trial on the prior convictions, and the court found one of the allegations true. The others were dismissed. The court found a violation of probation in CR-1945.

Appellant was sentenced to three years in state prison: the midterm of two years on the charge, one year consecutive for the prior conviction, and two years concurrent for the violation of probation. This appeal ensued.

2. Contentions on Appeal

Appellant contends first, that the provision of Proposition 115 which prohibits defendants in criminal cases from asking questions of prospective *469jurors to aid them in the exercise of their peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. Second, he contends the trial court erred in allowing introduction of inadmissible character evidence. Finally, he asserts that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct during closing argument by referring to appellant’s failure to testify, and by seeking to inflame the passion and prejudice of the jury.1

3. Jury Selection Procedures

Appellant complains that the jury selection procedures of Proposition 115 violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions by allowing litigants in civil cases greater latitude in questioning potential jurors than litigants in criminal cases.

Section 6 of Proposition 115 repealed former section 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2 As it stands now, section 223 requires the court to examine the prospective jurors, allows the court to permit supplemental examination by the parties or by itself at the behest of the parties on a showing of good cause, and forbids examination of prospective jurors in aid of the exercise of peremptory challenges.3

Jury selection by civil litigants is now governed by section 222.5.4 That section gives counsel for each party the right to examine prospective jurors *470“to enable [them] to intelligently exercise both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.”5

*471Appellant contends that equal protection concerns are violated when litigants in civil cases are given greater rights than litigants in criminal cases. “[0]nce the state has granted certain statutory rights to litigants, here the right to exercise peremptory challenges, the state cannot arbitrarily distinguish between various types of litigants unless that distinction rationally relates to a legitimate state goal. The question presented by Code of Civil Procedure sections 222.5 and 223 is why litigants in civil cases may ask potential jurors questions designed to aid in the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges but litigants in criminal cases may not.”6

“The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,’ which is essentially a direction that all persons *472similarly situated should be treated alike. [Citation.]” (Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985) 473 U.S. 432, 439 [87 L.Ed.2d 313, 573, 105 S.Ct. 3249].)

Similarly, California Constitution article I, section 7 provides: “(a) A person may not be . . . denied equal protection of the laws . . . .” “ ‘ “The concept. . . compels recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 522, 531 [159 Cal.Rptr. 317, 601 P.2d 549].) The equal protection guaranties of the California Constitution are substantially similar to the Fourteenth Amendment protections, although they have independent meaning and may provide broader rights than those available under the United States Constitution. (Serrano v. Priest (1976) 18 Cal.3d 728, 764-765 [135 Cal.Rptr. 345, 557 P.2d 929].)

Neither the federal nor the state equal protection clause denies the state the power to treat different classes of persons in different ways; however, both clauses deny the state the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the object of the statute. (Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) 405 U.S. 438, 446-447 [31 L.Ed.2d 349, 358-359, 92 S.Ct. 1029]; accord, Hardy v. Stumpf (1978) 21 Cal.3d 1, 8 [145 Cal.Rptr. 176, 576 P.2d 1342].)

“[T]he proponent of an equal protection claim must demonstrate that the challenged state action results in disparate treatment of persons who are similarly situated with regard to a given law’s legitimate purpose.” (People v. Raszler (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 1160, 1167 [215 Cal.Rptr. 770].)7

(a) Level of Scrutiny

“The first step in evaluating this contention is to determine the applicable level of judicial review. In Curtis v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 7 Cal.3d 942 . . . , we explained that: ‘[T]his court and the United States Supreme Court apply a two-level test. [Citation.] In the typical equal protection case the classification need only bear a rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose; “[on] the other hand, in cases involving ‘suspect classifications’ or touching on ‘fundamental interests,’ ... the court has adopted an attitude of active and critical analysis, subjecting the classification to strict scrutiny. [Citations omitted.] Under the *473strict standard applied in such cases, the state bears the burden of establishing not only that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law but that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose.” ’ [Citations.]” (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 798-799 [187 Cal.Rptr. 398, 654 P.2d 168], fn. omitted.)8

Both the United States and the California Supreme Courts have recognized that not every limitation or incidental burden on a fundamental right is subject to the strict scrutiny doctrine. When the regulation merely has an incidental effect on the exercise of protected rights, strict scrutiny is not applied. The doctrine is applied only when there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with, the exercise of a fundamental right. (Lucas v. Superior Court (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 733, 738 [250 Cal.Rptr. 76].)

*474Although a fair and impartial jury is a fundamental personal right, “[t]he Legislature [and the electorate (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 891 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744])] may . . . establish reasonable regulations or conditions on the enjoyment of the right [to a jury trial] as long as the essential elements of trial by jury are preserved. [Citation.]” (People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 692 [131 Cal.Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742].) The essential elements of a jury in criminal cases are number (12), unanimity, and impartiality. (Patton v. United States (1930) 281 U.S. 276 [74 L.Ed. 854, 50 S.Ct. 253, 70 A.L.R. 263]; People v. Peete (1921) 54 Cal.App. 333 [202 P. 51].)

In regard to jury selection, both federal and state courts have held that “voir dire is not of constitutional dimension[; therefore], limitations affecting peremptory challenges need not be reviewed with the close scrutiny reserved for encroachments on the fundamental rights of an accused.” (U.S. v. Scarfo (3d Cir. 1988) 850 F.2d 1015, 1021.) The right to voir dire is not a constitutional right but is a means to achieve the end of an impartial jury. (People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1086 [259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659].)

In addition, the peremptory challenge is a statutory privilege, limited only by the necessity of having an impartial jury. (People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1005 [248 Cal.Rptr. 568, 755 P.2d 1017].) Consequently, there is no constitutional right to any particular manner of conducting the voir dire and selecting a jury so long as such limitations as are recognized by the settled principles of criminal law to be essential in securing impartial juries are not transgressed. (Haith v. United States (E.D.Pa. 1964) 231 F.Supp. 495, 498 quoting Pointer v. United States (1894) 151 U.S. 396, 407-408 [38 L.Ed. 208, 213-214, 14 S.Ct. 410].)

Since the enactment challenged here does not touch on a fundamental right or involve a suspect classification, we conclude that the rational relationship test is appropriate.

(b) The Limitation

Proposition 115 was a remedial measure enacted in June 1990 to make “comprehensive reforms ... in order to restore balance and fairness to our criminal justice system.” (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends, to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (June 5, 1990) Text of Proposed Law, Prop. 115, § 1, subd. (a), p. 33.) The voters expressly found “that it is necessary to reform the law as developed in numerous California Supreme Court decisions and as set forth in the statutes of this state. These decisions *475and statutes have unnecessarily expanded the rights of accused criminals far beyond that which is required by the United States Constitution, thereby unnecessarily adding to the costs of criminal cases, and diverting the judicial process from its function as a quest for truth.” (Id. at p. 33.) “[T]he voters . . . expressly declared that their purposes were to reduce the unnecessary ‘costs of criminal cases’ and to ‘create a system in which justice is swift and fair . . . .’ (Prop. 115, § 1, subds. (b), (c).)” (Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 293 [279 Cal.Rptr. 592, 807 P.2d 434], fn. omitted.)9

At the time Proposition 115 was enacted, all litigants enjoyed similar jury selection procedures. In 1988, The Trial Jury Selection and Management Act had been added to the Code of Civil Procedure. (§ 190 et seq.) It brought together in one code all provisions affecting both civil and criminal trial juries.10 Examination of prospective jurors by civil litigants remained governed only by California Rules of Court, rules 228 and 516.11 Criminal litigants were also subject to rule 228 as well as to statutory provisions *476which were transferred from the Penal Code to former section 223 (and to § 223.5 for a special voir dire pilot project).12

Both civil and criminal litigants were allowed to voir dire in aid of the exercise of peremptory challenges. “From 1912 to 1981 ... the law in California under People v. Edwards [(1912) 163 Cal. 752 (127 P. 58)] did not permit questions designed solely to obtain information upon which to base the exercise of a peremptory challenge.” (DeFalla, Voir Dire for California’s Civil Trials; Applying the Williams Standard (1988) 39 Hastings L.J. 517, 524.) However, that right was given to criminal defendants in People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392 [174 Cal.Rptr. 317, 628 P.2d 869], and to civil litigants in Holley v. J & S Sweeping Co. (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 588 [192 Cal.Rptr. 74].

Former section 223 did not declare that criminal litigants had a right to propound such questions, but did provide that “(4) The attorneys’ need, under the circumstances, for information on which to exercise peremptory challenges intelligently” was one criterion for the court to consider in exercising its discretion and control with respect to voir dire. (See Stats. 1988, ch. 1245, § 2, p. 4149.) Shortly after the enactment of Proposition 115, the Legislature codified the right of civil litigants to examine prospective jurors in aid of the exercise of peremptory challenges in section 222.5.

For criminal litigants now, section 223 parallels the system used in the federal courts in both civil and criminal cases, although it is not identically worded with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.13 In practice, voir dire in federal courts is essentially conducted by the judge. (See Comment, *477Procedure —Scope of Voir Dire—Defendants Are Not Deprived of Intelligent Use of Peremptories by Voir Dire Restrictions Intended to Protect Potential Jurors’ Safety and Privacy (1979) 55 Notre Dame Law. 281, 282, fn. 13, and p. 285, fn. 39.) If the court conducts the voir dire itself, the court “shall permit” counsel for the litigants to supplement the examination by questions propounded either by them or the court. (See ante, our fn. 13.) Under section 223, supplementation by counsel for the parties is discretionary upon a showing of good cause.

The “federal system” was approved for use in California in civil cases in 1967 (Rousseau v. West Coast House Movers, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d 878), and for criminal cases in 1973 (People v. Crowe (1973) 8 Cal.3d 815 [106 Cal.Rptr. 369, 506 P.2d 193]).

If there is sufficient questioning to produce some basis for a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right of challenge, voir dire by the trial judge alone does not deprive a defendant of the right to adequate voir dire under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. (U.S. ex rel. Burns v. Haws (1989) 717 F.Supp. 600, 602-603; People v. Crowe, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 824.)

(c) The Basis for the Classification

At oral argument, appellant asserted that before a legislative body could create a classification, an evidentiary basis for the classification must be shown. Specifically, he contends that there must be some proof that criminal but not civil litigants would abuse the right to ask questions during voir.

Appellant relies on Craig v. Boren (1976) 429 U.S. 190 [50 L.Ed.2d 397, 97 S.Ct. 451] and Plyler v. Doe, supra, 457 U.S. 202, for this proposition. Both are cases in which the United States Supreme Court applied a heightened level of scrutiny. (See ante, fn. 8.)

In Craig v. Boren, the court stated that “the gender-based difference [in Oklahoma’s 3.2 percent beer sales statutes must] be substantially related to achievement of the statutory objective.” (429 U.S. at p. 204 [50 L.Ed.2d at p. *478411].) In Plyler v. Doe, the court reviewed a Texas statute which denied a free public education to children who were not legally admitted to the United States. After stating that undocumented aliens are not a suspect class and education is not a fundamental right, the court declared: “In determining the rationality of [the statute], we may appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and to the innocent children who are its victims. In light of these countervailing costs, the discrimination contained in [the statute] can hardly be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State.” (457 U.S. at pp. 223-224 [72 L.Ed.2d at p. 803].)

The scrutiny applied in these cases involved considerations which are irrelevant under the deferential rational relationship test, where the classification need bear only a rational relationship to any legitimate purpose of which the court can conceive. “In the absence of invidious discrimination ... a court is not free under the aegis of the Equal Protection Clause to substitute its judgment for the will of the people of a State as expressed in [its] laws . . . .” (Parham v. Hughes (1979) 441 U.S. 347, 351 [60 L.Ed.2d 269, 274-275, 99 S.Ct. 1742].) “So long as the state purpose upholding a statutory class is legitimate and nonillusory, its lack of primacy is not disqualifying.” (McGinnis v. Royster (1973) 410 U.S. 263, 276 [35 L.Ed.2d 282, 292, 93 S.Ct. 1055].)

Consequently, a claim such as appellant’s, that the People bear the burden of establishing a basis for the classification, is valid only if the classifications are among those considered suspect or result in the impairment of a fundamental interest of one of the classes. Under the rational relationship test, which we have determined to be appropriate here, the legislative “ ‘classification need only bear a rational relationship to a conceivable legitimate state purpose.’ ” (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 799, citations omitted.)

(d) Rational Relationship

Finally, appellant asserts that no matter how loftily the goals of Proposition 115 are stated, the real purpose of the enactment was to “invidiously discriminate against criminal defendants.”

We reject that assertion.

Proposition 115 was enacted to restore balance and fairness to the criminal justice system and create a system in which justice is swift and fair by reforming the law as it had recently been developed in court decisions and *479statutes. (See Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends, to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (June 5, 1990) Text of Proposed Law, Prop. 115, § 1, subds. (a), (b), (c), p. 33.)

These goals are not new. Periodic jury selection procedure reforms have addressed the same problems, for the same reasons, and have been acknowledged as valid by our courts.

After voir dire became the primary responsibility of the trial judge in 1927, our Supreme Court stated: “[T]he purpose of the enactment [Penal Code section 1078], of course, [was] to expedite the trial of criminal causes, and to correct the abuse which has grown up in this jurisdiction, through tedious and unnecessary examination of prospective jurors in criminal cases. It has become a matter of common knowledge in this state that the efforts on the part of counsel for defendants in criminal cases have developed into attempts to disqualify jurors, rather than to seek to ascertain their qualifications. The purpose of the statute, however, was not to bring about expedition by depriving either the People, or defendants charged with the commission of offenses, of the right of a reasonable examination of prospective jurors, and the legislature was particular to provide for that right.” (People v. Estorga (1928) 206 Cal. 81, 84 [273 P. 575].)

Penal Code section 1078 was held not to deprive a defendant of “any substantial right.... Nor was he deprived of a fair and impartial trial by a jury of twelve men . . . .” (People v. Edenburg (1928) 88 Cal.App. 558, 565 [263 P. 857].)

Nevertheless, the actuality of jury selection remained unsatisfactory. In 1971, it was still “commonplace knowledge that there have been extensive abuses by counsel on voir dire examination by engaging in tedious and time-wasting questions, which are seemingly interminable and repetitious and designed in many instances to accomplish purposes other than the legitimate objects of a reasonable voir dire examination. The necessity of eliminating huge case backlogs, of obtaining effective and productive dispatch of court business, of avoiding expense and wasted court time, of maintaining public confidence in our court system, and of not wasting the time and energy of jurors, dictates that such wearisome, time-wasting abuses be eliminated.” (People v. Adams (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 972, 979 [99 Cal.Rptr. 122].)

There is no doubt that trial court delays for both civil and criminal litigants have been and are perceived as a significant problem. Nevertheless, in enacting legislation, neither the Legislature nor the *480voters are bound, “in order to adopt a constitutionally valid statute, to extend it to all cases that might possibly be reached [citation], but [are] free to recognize degrees of harm and make restrictions affecting those classes of cases wherein the need is deemed to be clearest. [Citation.] The Legislature, in dealing with practical exigencies, may be guided by experience and is at liberty to select one phase of a problem for appropriate action without the necessity of including all others that might be affected in the same field of legislation. [Citations.] But when the legislative body proposes to address an area of concern in less than comprehensive fashion by ‘striking the evil where it is felt most,’ its decision as to where to ‘strike’ must have a rational basis in light of the legislative objectives. [Citations.]” (People v. Banner (1992), 3 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1323 [5 Cal.Rptr.2d 125].)

Proposition 115 is another attempt to balance competing interests. As articulated by our courts in the past, these include the interests of the parties in trying their case before a fair and impartial jury, the interest of the jurors in conserving their time and energies and avoiding unwarranted intrusion into their personal affairs, the interest of the general public in encouraging its citizens to serve as jurors and in avoiding the expense of wasted court time, the interest of other litigants in the availability of court facilities, and the interest of the trial court in effective and productive dispatch of its business. (Rousseau v. West Coast House Movers, supra, 256 Cal.App.2d at p. 885.) To these, Proposition 115 adds the interest of victims and witnesses in the timely resolution of the issues.

The California constitutional guarantee of a jury trial “does not require adherence to the letter of common law practice, and new procedures better suited to the efficient administration of justice may be substituted if there is no impairment of the substantial features of a jury trial.” (Dorsey v. Barba (1952) 38 Cal.2d 350, 356 [240 P.2d 604].)

The establishment of different procedures for different classes, both allowing participation by the parties in the selection of a fair and impartial jury, does not create a “dual court system.” (Cf. Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education (1982) 458 U.S. 527, 542 [73 L.Ed.2d 948, 959, 102 S.Ct. 3211].) “[H]aving gone beyond the requirements of the Federal Constitution, the State was free to return in part to the standard prevailing generally throughout the United States.” (Ibid.)

Appellant’s challenge is rejected.

*4814„ 5.*

6. Disposition

The judgment is affirmed.

Cottle, Acting P. J., concurred.

I concur in the result and in most of the majority opinion. However, with respect to those portions of the opinion dealing with jury selection procedures, I concur in the result only, for the reasons expressed in People v. Leung, post, page 482 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 290], filed simultaneously with this opinion.

Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 18, 1992.