What is the legal test for a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct?

When evaluating a new trial motion based on juror misconduct, the trial court undertakes a three-step process. (Barboni v. Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 345.) It must first " 'determine whether the affidavits supporting the motion are admissible. [Citation.]' [Citation.] This, like any issue of admissibility, we review for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] [] Second, 'If the evidence is admissible, the trial court must determine whether the facts establish misconduct. [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'The moving party bears the burden of establishing juror misconduct.' " (Ibid.) " ' "[W]e accept the trial court's credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]" ' [Citations.] [] ' "Lastly, assuming misconduct, the trial court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial." [Citation.]' [Citation.] On appeal, this court reviews the entire record, including the evidence, and makes an independent determination as to whether the misconduct was prejudicial." (Ibid.)

We will not reverse a trial court's decision to deny a new trial alleging juror misconduct unless, on a review of the entire record, the court has abused its discretion. (Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1187, 1213.)