 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Singh v. Takhar2/4/2002
information as well as how the information relates to the issues at hand." (People v. Hill, supra, at p. 37.)
In Hill, the court determined that references in the jury room to the penalty the defendant could receive for the crime of conspiracy to commit murder involved a matter not material to the issues presented to the jury. (People v Hill, supra, 3 Cal.App.4th at p. 37.) The court concluded that while such references were misconduct, they were not "inherently likely" to have affected the vote of any of the jurors because the references were isolated and infrequent; there was no evidence of a multilateral discussion of penalty nor competent evidence that penalty was considered; the evidence showed only two or three isolated statements relating to penalty as to which there were no responses; the statements were couched in terms merely of a probability that the defendant would receive a six-month jail sentence; and the information was not presented as authoritative or by someone with special knowledge of the subject. (Id. at pp. 37-38.)
Similarly, in People v. Hord, we held that while several jurors in that case committed misconduct by making comments during deliberations in a criminal trial about the defendant's not testifying and a comment regarding the defendant's sentence, such comments were not prejudicial and did not warrant a new trial. (People v. Hord, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at pp. 727-728.) As we explained:
"Although these matters were not to be discussed, the discussion was very different than when a juror performs experiments or brings in new law or facts into deliberations. The jury was obviously well aware here that defendant did not testify and equally aware that he would be punished if the jury found him to be guilty. Thus the comments did not interject any new material into deliberations that was not already known by the jury from the trial itself. Transitory comments of wonderment and curiosity, although misconduct, are normally innocuous, particularly when a comment stands alone without any further discussion. The facts that only some of the jurors recalled the comments tends to indicate that this was not a discussion of any length or significance.
"When comments go beyond natural curiosity and their content suggest inferences from forbidden areas, the chance of prejudice increases. For example, if a juror were to say, `The defendant didn't testify so he is guilty,' or `we will have to find the defendant guilty of the greatest charges to ensure he will be adequately punished,' the comments go beyond mere curiosity and lean more toward a juror's drawing inappropriate inferences from areas which are off limits. Such comments are more likely to influence that juror or other jurors." (People v. Hord, supra, 15 Cal.App.4th at pp. 727- 728.)
Here, during deliberations certain jurors expressed curiosity about why Birinder had been adopted, and several speculated it was because she was the victim of child or sexual abuse. It was misconduct to discuss these matters. The statements, however, were isolated and infrequent. The jury was well aware Birinder had been adopted, and therefore did not interject any new material into deliberations that the jury did not already know from the trial itself, other than their own speculation as to the reason for the adoption. There is no evidence that there were further discussions about Birinder's adoption. The other juror declaration offered in support of the motion for a new trial did not recount this incident, indicating this was not a discussion of any length or significance.
There is no evidence that the speculation that Birinder may have been the victim of child or sexual abuse was represented
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|