People v. Solorio, D070794

Background

Defendant Francisco Solorio was convicted of first‑degree murder for shooting his neighbor, Albert Ramos; prosecution said motive was revenge for Ramos’s earlier stabbing of defendant’s brother.
Two eyewitnesses observed Solorio pull a gun, say “remember what you did to my brother,” and shoot Ramos three times; Ramos was unarmed per those witnesses.
Solorio did not testify; defense relied on a recorded police interview and witnesses to support self‑defense.
After conviction, Solorio moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct: jurors repeatedly discussed his decision not to testify despite instructions not to consider it.
At a Hedgecock evidentiary hearing the foreperson (Juror 11) testified the issue arose several times over about an hour among multiple jurors and was repeatedly admonished but recurred; the trial court found misconduct but held the admonishments rebutted the presumption of prejudice and denied a new trial.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the presumption of prejudice from juror discussion of defendant’s silence was not rebutted on this record and remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jurors’ repeated discussion of defendant’s failure to testify warranted a new trial	People: Prompt admonitions and majority jurors’ lack of recollection rebut the presumption of prejudice	Solorio: Multiple recurring discussions (about an hour) showed jurors drew adverse inferences and admonitions were ineffective	Reversed — presumption of prejudice not rebutted; new trial required
Proper test for prejudice from juror discussion of silence	People: Trial court may consider totality, including strength of evidence	Solorio: Focus on whether jurors drew forbidden adverse inferences and whether admonitions were effective	Court: Follow Lavender — presumption may be rebutted by evidence that no prejudice resulted; here not rebutted given adverse inferences and repeated recurrence
Admissibility and use of juror testimony to resolve disputed misconduct	People: Some juror declarations inadmissible under Evid. Code §1150; trial court should hold Hedgecock hearing	Solorio: Foreperson’s testimony admissible and supports misconduct findings	Court: Affirmed use of Hedgecock hearing and credited Juror 11’s testimony; independent appellate review of prejudice required
Whether appellate review may consider overall trial evidence strength to assess prejudice	People: Entire record (including evidence strength) can show no reasonable probability of harm	Solorio: Misconduct here went to ultimate issue and Fifth Amendment protections, limiting weight of evidence-strength inquiry	Court: Questioned appropriateness of relying on evidence strength for this misconduct; even if considered, evidence did not rebut presumption

Key Cases Cited

People v. Lavender, 60 Cal.4th 679 (Supreme Court of California) (presumption of prejudice from juror comments about defendant’s silence may be rebutted; factors for assessing prejudice)
People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (Supreme Court of California) (prompt admonition can rebut presumption when discussion was brief)
People v. Tafoya, 42 Cal.4th 1475 (Supreme Court of California) (two‑part test for juror bias analysis and considering entire record)
People v. Leonard, 40 Cal.4th 1370 (Supreme Court of California) (no prejudice where comments were brief and no adverse inferences expressed)
In re Stankewitz, 40 Cal.3d 391 (Supreme Court of California) (presumption of prejudice stronger when misconduct goes to ultimate issue)
People v. Cissna, 182 Cal.App.4th 1105 (Court of Appeal) (repeated juror contact with nonjuror about defendant’s silence was prejudicial)
People v. Hord, 15 Cal.App.4th 711 (Court of Appeal) (distinguishing innocuous curiosity from prejudicial adverse inferences)
People v. Loker, 44 Cal.4th 691 (Supreme Court of California) (prompt admonition can rebut presumption when effective)