Title: P. v. Danks

State: california

Issuer: California Supreme Court

Document:

1 
 
Filed 4/14/04 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S032146 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
JOSEPH MARTIN DANKS, 
) 
 
) 
Kern County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. SC 44842 
___________________________________ ) 
 
MODIFICATION OF OPINION 
 
THE COURT: 
 
The opinion herein, appearing at 32 Cal.4th 269, is modified as follows: 
 
1. 
In 32 Cal.4th, at page 302, last paragraph, insert the following sentence 
after the first sentence (“We first determine whether there was any misconduct.”):  
“Misconduct by a juror, or a nonjuror’s tampering contact or communication with a 
sitting juror, usually raises a rebuttable ‘presumption’ of prejudice.  [Citations.]”  (In 
re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273, 295.)  
 
2. 
In 32 Cal.4th, at page 302, last paragraph, insert the word, “However,” 
including the comma, and replace the word “The” with “[t]he” in the second sentence 
(which begins with “ ‘The introduction of much of what might strictly’ ”).  The 
 
 
 
2 
 
modified sentence would read:  However, “[t]he introduction of much of what might 
strictly be labeled ‘extraneous law’ cannot be deemed misconduct.  
 
3. 
In 32 Cal.4th, at page 310, second paragraph, insert the following two 
sentences after the first sentence (which ends with “and there was no prejudicial 
misconduct.”):  Having found no prejudicial juror misconduct, we conclude 
defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights to an impartial jury and reliable 
penalty verdict were not violated.  Nor under the circumstances of this case do we 
conclude that defendant’s right to confrontation, or to the extent it is even implicated, 
his right to be free of an establishment of religion, were violated. 
 
4. 
In 32 Cal.4th, at page 310, second paragraph, delete the phrase “Having 
done so,” including the comma, and capitalize the word “we” in the sentence, 
“Having done so, we further reject defendant’s other arguments . . . .”   
 
This modification does not affect the judgment.