 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Singh2/10/2003
ce to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.'" (Rogers v. Tennessee (2001) 532 U.S. 451, 461.) The decision in Bland was certainly not unexpected or indefensible. In fact, it was expected insofar as it merely reaffirmed longstanding precedents. We therefore reject appellant's contentions on this issue.
In an ancillary argument, appellant maintains if his intent did not transfer, then the court's other instructions as to second degree murder were also erroneous. This contention is moot, since appellant was convicted of first degree murder, and he therefore could not have suffered any prejudice from the second degree murder instructions. Because we do not decide moot issues, we reject appellant's contentions regarding the second degree murder instructions on this ground. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10-11 (Finnie).)
D. Denial of Access to Confidential Juror Information
Finally, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by declining to provide him with confidential juror information.
Appellant's trial counsel brought a motion to reveal jurors' confidential information, such as addresses and phone numbers, so he could conduct interviews in support of a possible new trial motion based on juror misconduct. His request was denied. Defense counsel later obtained this juror information by another means. He then advised the court that the needed information had been obtained from juror interviews and, in light of these interviews, he would not be making a new trial motion based upon juror misconduct. It appears appellant suffered no prejudice as a result of the trial court's ruling, and that his contention is moot. (Finnie, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at pp. 10-11)
It will be necessary to summarize the relevant procedural history in greater depth in order to demonstrate the mootness of this issue. During the penalty phase, the trial court became aware of a report that some of the jurors had read newspaper articles discussing the guilty verdict reached in the first phase of the trial. Jurors were questioned regarding this matter, and the court expressed satisfaction that the jury had not received any improper information.
Later, defense counsel stated that a note had been passed from the jury during the penalty phase indicating one juror believed there may have been some indication of prejudgment on the part of other jurors. Assuming the prejudgment referred to the penalty phase of the trial, defense counsel elected to not raise the issue at the time this first came to his attention. However, in view of appellant's claim that he had overheard jurors speaking to one another about improper matters, he now questioned whether the prejudgment may have been in reference to the guilt phase.
The trial court solicited a declaration under Code of Civil Procedure section 237 setting out appellant's claims of juror misconduct, and his trial counsel agreed to submit such a declaration. On January 16, 2001, the court filed a letter from appellant, dated January 6, 2001. A hearing was held at which appellant testified at length concerning his claims of alleged juror misconduct. No sworn declaration appears in the record.
At the close of the hearing, the trial court issued the following ruling: "The Court: What the defendant has to establish is a sufficient showing of juror misconduct, diligent efforts to contact jurors through other means, and the need for further investigation to obtain information for the court to rule on a motion for new trial. [ ] And I will say, at the outset, I have serious questions as to Mr. Singh's credibility, having sat through the trial. [ ] What we have
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|