Case Title: P. v. Schmeck

Citation: 

Docket Number: S015008M

State: california

Court: California Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed 10/12/05 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S015008 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Alameda County 
MARK LINDSEY SCHMECK, 
) 
Super. Ct. No. H-9033 
 
 
) 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
 
 
) 
 
THE COURT: 
The opinion filed in this matter on August 25, 2005, is modified as follows: 
The first sentence of the second full paragraph on 37 Cal.4th at page 286 is 
modified to read:  “Defendant did not object to the prosecutor’s statement or seek an 
admonition, and no exception to the general requirement of an objection is applicable; 
to the extent defendant claims the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the 
law, defendant has forfeited this claim on appeal.” 
The first full paragraph on 37 Cal.4th at page 295 is modified to read as 
follows:  “We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to 
hold a further evidentiary hearing.  The trial court is required to hold such a hearing 
only when the defense adduces evidence demonstrating a ‘strong possibility that 
prejudicial misconduct has occurred,’ and generally a hearing is unnecessary unless 
there is a material conflict in the evidence presented by the parties.  (Hedgecock, 
 
 
 
 
2
supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 419.)  Even assuming that a conversation occurred between 
Juror D. N. and the prisoner, whether Juror D. N. spoke to someone was not a 
material issue in the case, and evidence of any such conversation did not create a 
likelihood of prejudicial misconduct.  Rather, the conversation, if one occurred, was 
relevant only if Juror D. N. spoke to a third person about the case, and the declaration 
expressly stated that the juror did not do so.  Indeed, the trial court previously had 
held an evidentiary hearing to investigate assertions that the juror committed 
misconduct, and found no misconduct.  Under these circumstances, the trial court 
acted within its discretion in declining to hold a second evidentiary hearing.  (People 
v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 582.)” 
This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.