Shanks v. Dept. of Transportation
215 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gary Shanks died in a head-on motorcycle collision on a blind curve of State Highway 33; plaintiffs (wife and adult son on behalf of minor children) sued the State and the other motorcyclist for wrongful death.
- The jury found the State liable for a dangerous condition and awarded a total of $12,690,000; allocation of fault was 90% to the State and 10% to Castellon by a 9–3 vote on apportionment.
- After ~90 minutes of deliberation, Juror No. 2 reported that Juror No. 7 was not adequately deliberating; the court questioned Juror No. 2 and Juror No. 1 (who also complained) but did not question Juror No. 7, the foreperson, or other jurors.
- The trial court excused Juror No. 7 and seated an alternate, citing prior concerns (possible sleeping during closing) combined with the jurors’ complaints; the court did not conduct a broader inquiry.
- Juror No. 7 later declared she had not slept, had listened to all argument and evidence, had an initial leaning for the State but had not closed her mind, and that preliminary votes before her dismissal showed she favored the State.
- The trial court denied the State’s new trial motion; the Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding the discharge was an abuse of discretion and remanding for retrial on apportionment only, affirming the remainder of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by discharging Juror No. 7 during deliberations | Removal was justified because Juror No. 7 had shown inattentiveness during closing and had been identified by two jurors as refusing to deliberate | Discharge was premature and the court’s inquiry was inadequate; must question the complained-of juror, foreperson and noncomplaining jurors before removal | Court: Abuse of discretion—record does not show as a demonstrable reality that Juror No. 7 could not perform; inadequate inquiry (should have questioned Juror No. 7, foreperson and others) |
| Whether the State forfeited appellate review by failing to object at trial | Plaintiffs: State did not preserve the issue | State: Asked for additional investigation and objected to limited inquiry; futility of further objection after court’s firm position | Court: No forfeiture—State preserved issue by requesting further investigation and objecting; further objection would have been futile |
| Whether Juror No. 7’s alleged sleeping justified removal without questioning her | Plaintiffs: Prior reports (realtime note, counsel observations) supported court’s concerns | State: Evidence of sleeping was equivocal; court had obstructed view and should have asked Juror No. 7 about it | Court: Sleeping allegation was speculative and insufficient alone; court should have given Juror No. 7 chance to explain before removal |
| Whether the improper discharge was prejudicial and appropriate remedy | Plaintiffs: Dismissal did not prejudice verdict or requires full retrial | State: Juror No. 7 favored the State on apportionment; removal likely affected the 9–3 apportionment vote | Court: Prejudicial as to apportionment only; remand for retrial on apportionment of fault; remainder of judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cleveland, 25 Cal.4th 466 (establishes need for careful inquiry and that discharge requires demonstrable reality that juror cannot deliberate)
- People v. Allen and Johnson, 53 Cal.4th 60 (a juror may hold preliminary opinions; strong expression is not automatic proof of refusal to deliberate)
- Boeken v. Philip Morris Inc., 127 Cal.App.4th 1640 (civil case approving discharge only after thorough inquiry interviewing juror and other jurors)
- People v. Fuiava, 53 Cal.4th 622 (trial court must not conduct an overly cursory inquiry into juror misconduct)
- People v. Barber, 102 Cal.App.4th 145 (reversible error where court questioned only jurors supporting removal and not those who defended the holdout juror)
- People v. Compton, 6 Cal.3d 55 (court must question the juror at issue before discharging when the record is ambiguous)
- People v. Hamilton, 60 Cal.2d 105 (improper removal of a juror favoring one side can be prejudicial; improper discharge may ‘load’ a jury)