People v. Lavender
60 Cal. 4th 679
| Cal. | 2014Background
- Floyd Lavender and Michael James Gaines were convicted of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and multiple torture counts for the death of Courtney Bowser; sentences included 25 years to life plus consecutive and concurrent terms.
- Prosecution theory: defendants tortured victims to recover stolen traveler’s checks; Bowser was later found dead in an irrigation ditch; defense argued overdose and scapegoating by percipient witnesses; no forensic link to defendants for murder.
- During deliberations, one or more jurors discussed that defendants did not testify and that if they were innocent they should have testified; three jurors' declarations asserted the discussion influenced the verdict.
- The foreperson submitted a declaration stating she immediately admonished the jurors not to consider the defendants’ failure to testify and that the discussion ceased; later inconsistent statements and an investigator’s account created a conflict about whether any admonition occurred and how extensive the discussion was.
- The trial court found misconduct occurred but concluded the foreperson’s admonition cured prejudice and denied a new-trial motion; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding the presumption of prejudice unrebutted and ordering a new trial.
- The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal erred in declaring such misconduct categorically prejudicial without first resolving disputed facts; remanded to the trial court to determine the nature/scope of misconduct, whether an admonition was given, and whether objective evidence shows the admonition was ineffective.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Lavender/Gaines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors’ discussion of defendants’ failure to testify constituted misconduct giving rise to a presumption of prejudice | Juror mention occurred but the foreperson immediately admonished the jury; admonition cured prejudice | The discussion (including adverse inferences) was substantial and influenced the verdict; presumption of prejudice unrebutted | Misconduct occurred; presumption arises, but whether it was rebutted depends on factual disputes (remand to resolve) |
| Whether a foreperson’s immediate admonition can rebut the presumption of prejudice when jurors discuss adverse inferences from silence | Admonition normally rebuts presumption absent objective evidence showing it would be ineffective | Foreperson’s admonition insufficient when jury entertained adverse inferences despite prior instructions | A prompt admonition is strong evidence to rebut the presumption unless objective evidence shows it was ineffective; trial court must resolve credibility disputes |
| Whether the appellate court correctly reversed without remanding for factfinding | People: urged no hearing originally but later agreed remand appropriate given unresolved facts | Defendants: argued no further proceedings necessary and that reversal was required on existing record | Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded to trial court to resolve material factual disputes and reconsider the new-trial motion |
| Whether the People are estopped or have forfeited the right to request further proceedings because of prior positions | People argued no hearing earlier but may adjust position given expanded record; remand is appropriate | Defendants argued People should be estopped from seeking a hearing | Court rejected estoppel/forfeiture; allowed trial court discretion to hold evidentiary hearing and resolve conflicts |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Loker, 44 Cal.4th 691 (admonition by foreperson can rebut presumption of prejudice)
- People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (standard for reviewing whether presumption of prejudice was rebutted)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (foreperson’s immediate reminder mitigated misconduct about failure to testify)
- People v. Hord, 15 Cal.App.4th 711 (distinguishes casual curiosity from prejudicial inferences; admonition can cure misconduct)
- People v. Cissna, 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (extraneous, repeated discussion with nonjuror carried high potential for prejudice)
- People v. Perez, 4 Cal.App.4th 893 (remand for evidentiary hearing where factual disputes material)
- People v. Bryant, 191 Cal.App.4th 1457 (discussed on remand directive; appellate treatment of juror-misconduct claims)
- In re Carpenter, 9 Cal.4th 634 (trial court is the factfinder for credibility and factual disputes)