What is the test for "reasonably necessary" to question a juror about misconduct?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Johnson, F073002 (Cal. App. 2018):

Rodrigues, supra, 8 Cal.4th at pp. 1124-1125; see People v. Williams, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 162 [abuse of discretion review asks whether ruling in question falls outside bounds of reason under applicable law and relevant facts].)

Appellant contends it was "reasonably necessary" to question juror 3136430 when she appeared at the courthouse. He notes that defense counsel neither requested this juror's personal contact information nor wanted to interview her in a private setting. He maintains her testimony would not have intruded on privacy rights, and the court, as opposed to counsel, could have asked the questions about misconduct. Appellant argues that, balancing the competing interests, the court should have invited the juror into the courtroom for further inquiry or compelled her testimony if she was unwilling. He relies primarily on People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339 (Tuggles) to establish error. We find appellant's arguments and his reliance on Tuggles unconvincing.

When possible juror misconduct is discovered, a trial court must make whatever inquiry is "'"reasonably necessary"'" to resolve the issue. (People v. Hayes, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 1255.) When allegations of juror misconduct raise a presumption of prejudice, the court may conduct an evidentiary hearing and take testimony from jurors to determine whether a new trial motion should be granted. Such a hearing may occur if the court concludes it is necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact. (Ibid.)

Strong public policies protect discharged jurors from improperly intrusive conduct. (Townsel v. Superior Court, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 1092.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 206, juror consent is required before the parties may contact a juror after trial. (Code Civ. Proc., 206, subd. (b).) The disclosure of a juror's personal identifying information is controlled by Code of Civil Procedure section 237, which requires a petition supported by a declaration establishing good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., 237, subd. (b).) Protection of a juror's privacy, however, must be balanced with the

Page 27

Other Questions


Is a trial court's failure to question each juror privately regarding a juror misconduct claim an issue of abuse of power not one of constitutional significance? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct based on Juror misconduct, what is the effect of the finding on the credibility of the jury? (California, United States of America)
Is a reasonable person in a reasonable position to end their questioning and leave the questioning? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for reviewing the record for "reasonable grounds upon which the prosecutor might reasonably have challenged the jurors in question"? (California, United States of America)
Does section 1123 of the Penal Code allow for a mistrial where a juror's illness or other good cause causes the juror to be unable to perform his duty and there are no alternate jurors? (California, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a defense counsel object to a prosecutor's argument that a witness who withdrew from questioning because she was not engaging with the questioning, is entitled to continue questioning? (California, United States of America)
Does a juror have any relation to the juror in question? (California, United States of America)
Can a juror be excused from a trial where the juror's answer to a question was so equiviable that the jury was unable to hear it? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for evidence that the appellant could reasonably reasonably reasonably expect the appellant to have knowledge of a crime? (California, United States of America)
What is the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable plaintiff and a reasonable plaintiff under a "reasonable implied assumption of risk" approach? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.