204 Cal. App. 4th 542
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Garcia was convicted by a jury of four counts of attempted murder and three other felonies with enhancements; the gang and personal discharge enhancements were found true.
- The court later reversed counts 1–4, 6–7 and their enhancements due to lack of a 12-person unanimous verdict; count 5 and its gang enhancement were affirmed.
- A juror was replaced during deliberations; sealed verdicts were later presented and recited after an alternate juror joined.
- The sealed verdicts were affirmed by only 11 jurors at the time of entry, with the 12th juror (Juror 181) later claiming the verdicts as hers.
- California constitutional and statutory requirements mandate a 12-person unanimous verdict; the trial court later discharged and could not reconvene the jurors without jurisdiction.
- The state appellate court remanded for sentencing considerations and affirmed the gang enhancement on count 5 but reversed the other attempted murder convictions due to non-unanimity; sufficiency of the remaining evidence was addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Garcia denied a unanimous verdict? | Traugott applies; 12 jurors did not affirm all verdicts. | Consent to fewer than 12 was not obtained; 11 jurors affirmed in court, 12th later affirmed. | Yes; convictions on counts 1–4, 6–7 reversed for lack of unanimity. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder counts | Six to eight shots fired at four victims show intent to kill each victim. | Perez limits multiple counts from a single act of firing. | Evidence supports four counts of attempted murder despite Perez distinctions. |
| mootness of issues tied to instructions and credits | Reversal of the armed counts affects related issues. | No need to decide those issues if counts are reversed. | moot; not addressed further. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Traugott, 184 Cal.App.4th 492 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (unanimity requirement; oral declaration controls verdict)
- People v. Collins, 26 Cal.4th 297 (Cal. 2001) (fundamental right to jury unanimity)
- People v. Green, 31 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1995) (oral declaration constitutes return of verdict)
- People v. Bonillas, 48 Cal.3d 757 (Cal. 1989) (verdicts must be complete and cannot be entered without unanimous affirmation)
- People v. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 379 (Cal. 1892) (juror affirmation cannot be done by a discharged juror)
- People v. Ernst, 8 Cal.4th 441 (Cal. 1994) (defendant consent required for trial by fewer than 12; counsel cannot substitute for defendant)