Is a juror declaration inadmissible when one or more jurors failed to follow the trial court's instructions?

This case falls under the rule that "juror declarations are inadmissible to the extent that they purport to describe the jurors' understanding of the instructions or how they arrived at their verdict. [Citations.]" (Bell v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1125.) This rule precludes consideration of a juror declaration even when the declaration indicates that one or more jurors failed to follow the trial court's instructions. For instance, in Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, juror declarations stated that certain jurors had "defined a ' battery' as contact which is intentional or unlawful or harmful or offensive" in a manner contrary to the trial court's instruction, "which provided a battery 'is any intentional, unlawful and harmful or offensive contact by one person with the person of another.' " (Id. at pp. 1682-1683.) The appellate court found that the juror declarations were inadmissible because they "recited only the reasoning process of the jurors during deliberations." (Id. at p. 1684.) Even where a juror declaration indicates a verbal agreement regarding application of the trial court's instructions, Evidence Code section 1150 prohibits consideration of the juror's statements of their thought processes.

Page 30

(See People v. Dillon (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1384, fn. 9 [Evid. Code, 1150 prohibited admission of juror declarations that indicated jurors had " 'verbally discussed and agreed' " on a certain understanding of the relevant instructions].) "The subjective quality of one juror's reasoning is not purged by the fact that another juror heard and remembers the verbalization of that reasoning. To hold otherwise would destroy the rule . . . which clearly prohibits the upsetting of a jury verdict by assailing these subjective mental processes. It would also inhibit and restrict the free exchange of ideas during the jury's deliberations." (People v. Elkins (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 632, 638.)