People v. Hem, 242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 399

Background

On Oct. 11, 2014 Andy Hem shot and killed his brother; defendant admitted shooting but claimed self‑defense; jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter and grossly negligent discharge of a firearm and found a personal‑use firearm enhancement; sentence 16 years.
During deliberations the jury sent multiple questions to the court, reported partial deadlock, and the foreperson later checked a box saying "We have agreed upon a verdict" but also "We cannot reach a further agreement."
Defense counsel received a third‑party report (from an attorney who overheard jurors) that four jurors had been discussing the case outside the deliberation room and one or more jurors expressed concern about "letting [defendant] out so he could kill someone else's kid," and that they could "live with manslaughter."
The court accepted the third‑party account as accurate but refused to conduct an on‑the‑record inquiry of jurors, instead giving a general admonition reiterating that jurors must deliberate only together.
After additional instructions and argument the jury returned a verdict acquitting on murder counts and convicting of voluntary manslaughter and related firearm offenses.
On appeal the court found the trial court erred by failing to inquire into the scope of juror misconduct; that omission triggered a presumption of prejudice the People failed to rebut; the conviction was reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court err by failing to inquire into alleged jury misconduct?	The People accepted the third‑party account and argued no further inquiry was needed because admonition would cure any problem.	Hem argued an inquiry was required to determine scope and whether jurors had improperly considered punishment or brokered a compromise verdict.	Court: Yes. Once alerted to jurors discussing the case outside deliberations and possible improper consideration of punishment, the court had to conduct a careful inquiry; it failed to do so.
Did juror misconduct raise a presumption of prejudice and was it rebutted?	The People argued the overall record and admonitions dispelled prejudice; the verdict on lesser offenses showed no harm.	Hem argued misconduct (overt violation of oath by some jurors) raises a presumption of prejudice and the People must rebut it; no adequate rebuttal was made.	Court: Presumption of prejudice arose and the People did not rebut it on this record; reversal required.
Was a mistrial required immediately?	People contended mistrial was premature and an admonition/limited remedy could suffice.	Defense sought mistrial or at least an inquiry before relying on admonition.	Court: Mistrial not required per se, but an on‑the‑record inquiry was required before choosing admonition as the remedy.
Did the secrecy of deliberations bar any inquiry?	People argued protecting deliberation secrecy limited probing.	Defense argued secrecy is not absolute; reasonable inquiry is permitted when misconduct is alleged.	Court: Secrecy yields to reasonable, carefully conducted inquiry when there is evidence of juror misconduct.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Weatherton, 59 Cal.4th 589 (clarifies presumption of prejudice and burden on prosecution to rebut juror misconduct)
People v. Nelson, 1 Cal.5th 513 (secrecy of deliberations may give way to reasonable inquiry)
People v. Engelman, 28 Cal.4th 436 (inquiry permitted to determine juror misconduct; admonitions and care required)
People v. Keenan, 46 Cal.3d 478 (inquiry must minimize pressure on minority jurors)
People v. Hedgecock, 51 Cal.3d 395 (hearing warranted on strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct; avoid fishing expeditions)
People v. McNeal, 90 Cal.App.3d 830 (trial court must determine extent of juror misconduct and effect on other jurors)
People v. Burgener, 41 Cal.3d 505 (court must inquire when put on notice good cause to discharge a juror may exist)
People v. Chavez, 231 Cal.App.3d 1471 (failure to inquire about extraneous contacts is error when information suggests improper influence)
People v. Lavender, 60 Cal.4th 679 (admonitions can be strong evidence rebutting prejudice in some contexts)
In re Hitchings, 6 Cal.4th 97 (presumption of prejudice when juror violates oath)