70 Cal.App.5th 100
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Defendant Michael Flores shot and killed Dallas Taylor and was charged with murder, firearm enhancements, illegal firearm possession, and child endangerment.
- Jury was instructed not to consider punishment and began deliberations; after an 8–4 split between second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter a juror was dismissed and replaced by D.R., a corrections lieutenant.
- Juror declarations submitted with a new-trial motion reported group discussions during guilt-phase deliberations about whether a hung jury would let defendant “walk,” D.R. allegedly vouched from his corrections experience and discussed sentences, and several jurors changed votes after lunch to avoid a hung jury.
- The trial court denied the new-trial motion, ruling the jurors’ declarations were inadmissible under Evidence Code §1150 as internal thought processes and concluding punishment discussions were not misconduct; it did find a brief gang-discussion misconduct harmless.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held parts of the jurors’ declarations were admissible (overt statements), found the jury’s consideration of punishment during the guilt phase was misconduct, and concluded the People failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of juror declarations under Evidence Code §1150 | Declarations about jurors’ reasoning are inadmissible as internal mental processes | Statements that an out‑loud discussion of punishment occurred and specific overt statements are admissible to show misconduct | Trial court erred to exclude all declarations; overt, objectively ascertainable statements about punishment discussions were admissible, but not jurors’ subjective thought processes |
| Whether punishment discussion during guilt-phase is juror misconduct | Such remarks were mere "ruminations" or comparable to penalty-phase commentary and not misconduct | Jury consideration of punishment during the guilt phase is irrelevant and constitutes misconduct, especially where jurors were expressly instructed otherwise | Considering punishment in guilt deliberations is misconduct; penalty-phase precedents are inapplicable |
| Prejudice and entitlement to a new trial | No prejudice: strong evidence supports verdict; jurors had decided guilt already; any error harmless | Punishment-based discussions create a rebuttable presumption of prejudice; People failed to rebut and actual bias reasonably probable | Presumption of prejudice was not rebutted; given timing, nature, and D.R.’s apparent authority the misconduct likely affected the verdict, so reversal required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th 1234 (admissibility under Evidence Code §1150; distinguishes overt acts from juror mental processes)
- People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466 (statements constituting juror misconduct may be admissible when the statement itself is overt misconduct)
- Barboni v. Tuomi, 210 Cal.App.4th 340 (standard of review and three-step analysis for new-trial motion based on juror misconduct)
- People v. Johnson, 222 Cal.App.4th 486 (admission of juror statements about deliberations where the making of the statement itself was misconduct)
- People v. Engelman, 28 Cal.4th 436 (punishment must not enter guilt-phase deliberations)
- People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153 (distinguishing penalty-phase commentary from guilt-phase misconduct)
- People v. Williams, 40 Cal.4th 287 (presumption of prejudice from juror misconduct; burden on prosecution to rebut)
- People v. Lavender, 60 Cal.4th 679 (jury admonitions, misconduct, and prejudice analysis)
- People v. Weatherton, 59 Cal.4th 589 (factors in assessing prejudice from juror misconduct)
- People v. Echavarria, 13 Cal.App.5th 1255 (reversal where juror comment about "walking" influenced verdict)
- In re Stankewitz, 40 Cal.3d 391 (presumption of prejudice from juror misconduct and its rebuts)
- People v. Solorio, 17 Cal.App.5th 398 (consideration of nature, scope, and frequency of misconduct in prejudice analysis)
- People v. Hem, 31 Cal.App.5th 218 (noting that a mistrial is preferable to a compromised verdict reached for improper reasons)
- People v. Moore, 166 Cal.App.3d 540 (dangers of sentencing considerations influencing guilt determinations)
- People v. Allen, 29 Cal.App.3d 932 (improper reference to penalty or punishment generally reversible because it can mislead jurors)