How has the court treated the issue of jury misconduct in a motion for a new trial?

17 After the verdicts of guilt and death, Wisely made a motion for new trial, which was denied as to the guilt phase but granted as to the penalty phase. On appeal we upheld the granting of the motion as to penalty; upon remand the prosecution abandoned the death penalty. (People v. Wisely, Jan. 24, 1986, G000749.) Wisely moved for leave to renew his motion for new trial as to the issue of guilt and that motion was granted.

18 At this session, the court stated it had previously denied the new trial motion on all guilt phase issues. However, the record reflects that at the prior session, the court did not specifically rule on the jury misconduct issue, only expressly mentioned other issues, and deferred all remaining issues. Thus, the court was correct, albeit for the wrong reason, in allowing Wisely leave to present further evidence on the topic at the first motion. The court had the discretion to allow Wisely to present juror testimony. (People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260.)