Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/24/121.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:04:41+00:00

Document:
Appellate Defenders, Inc., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jeffrey K. Jayson and Barry D. Utsinger for Defendant and Appellant.
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Gary S. Goodpaster, Chief Assistant State Public Defender, and Richard E. Shapiro, Deputy State Public Defender, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant appeals from judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350.) We affirm.
"[The Court:] Now, gentlemen, could we -- would you be willing to stipulate that the alternate juror be sequestered with the other jurors with the admonition that she not participate in the discussions verbally, but that she listen and sit quiet and mind her own business, so in the event it is necessary for her to sit in for somebody else, the jury deliberations will not have to start out from the very beginning.
"[Deputy District Attorney] Thompson: I would be willing to stipulate to that.
"[Deputy Public Defender] Johnson: So stipulated.
"The Court: All right, then, Mrs. Everett, I want to advise you that you are still an alternate juror. You dare not intrude your opinions into the jury deliberations. You shall listen very carefully to what is being said, hold your temper. In the event it is necessary for you to replace one of the other jurors during the course of deliberations, then you won't have to -- the other jurors won't have to start all over with their deliberations. In the event that a verdict is reached without your services being required, that means you are just going to have to sit there and be patient even if you don't agree with what is going on. Okay?
It did not become necessary for Mrs. Everett to substitute for a regular juror.
The second question considered by the Court of Appeal in Bruneman was not before this court in Britton for there is no indication of a stipulation in that case. Considering the question now as a matter of first impression in this court, we conclude the presence of alternates in the jury room during deliberations is not necessarily detrimental to a defendant's right of trial by jury and that defense counsel may stipulate to such procedure.
In Potter v. Perini (6th Cir. 1976) 545 F.2d 1048, a federal habeas corpus proceeding involving an Ohio prisoner, the court of appeals held that the right of jury trial protected by the federal Constitution is not violated by the presence of an alternate in the jury room during deliberations; the court noted that the Ohio courts had reached the same conclusion under the state Constitution.
Defendant's remaining contention concerning instructional error has been fully considered and found to lack merit.
Tobriner, J., Richardson, J., Manuel, J., and Newman, J., concurred.
Four and a half decades ago it was firmly established in California that the presence in the jury room of alternate jurors to whom the case had not been submitted for decision was an invasion of the defendant's right of trial by jury. (People v. Bruneman (1935) 4 Cal. App. 2d 75 [40 P.2d 891].) And, said the court at that time, "we further conclude that this was an error so far destructive to the invaded right, that the error could not by mere consent be rendered harmless" (id., at p. 81).
This elementary rule of law has gone unchallenged since 1935, when, in the same year that Bruneman was decided, we approved the identical principle in People v. Britton (1935) 4 Cal. 2d 622 [52 P.2d 217]. As recently as 1976, a unanimous opinion of this court again emphasized that after final submission of the cause the alternates "are sequestered apart from the deliberating jurors." (People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 687, 694 [131 Cal. Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742].) It would seem that the rule would be well known to and routinely respected by trial judges, and, indeed, it has been prior to this case. Thus it is with a feeling of deja vu that we face again the precise factual circumstances of Bruneman. Without persuasive explanation, however, the majority now jettison nearly 45 years of precedent and misread Penal Code section 1089 in [24 Cal. 3d 129] order to adopt a radically different rule authorizing an invasion of the defendant's right of trial by jury on the mere consent of counsel.
I turn first to the statute governing the use of alternate jurors in criminal prosecutions, Penal Code section 1089. As originally enacted (Stats. 1895, ch. 213, p. 279), the section provided that if the regular jurors are ordered sequestered during the course of the trial the "alternate jurors shall also be kept in confinement with the other jurors." This, of course, is still the practice: alternates are taken out to meals by the sheriff together with regular jurors, and if the jury is held overnight all are quartered in the same facilities. The section further provided that the alternate jurors "shall be discharged upon the final submission of the case to the jury."
In 1933 a significant amendment was adopted (Stats. 1933, ch. 521, p. 1342), drastically changing the treatment of alternates when jury deliberations begin: "and upon final submission of the case to the jury such alternate jurors shall be kept in the custody of the sheriff and shall not be discharged until the original jurors are discharged, except as hereinafter provided." (Italics added.) Thereafter provided was a paragraph dealing with substitution of an alternate for an original juror. Similar provisions are contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 605 for civil cases.
The procedure devised by the Legislature is thus clear and uncomplicated: when the case is submitted to the 12 regular jurors and they retire for their private deliberations, the alternate jurors do not retire with them but remain with the sheriff and are retained in his custody until the original jury is discharged by the court. This has been the practice of our trial judges since 1933.
Bruneman arose shortly after the 1933 amendment was adopted. Defense counsel in the case was the eminent criminal lawyer of that era, Jerry Giesler. The trial judge recognized (4 Cal.App.2d at p. 77) that the new amendment required the alternates to be kept in the custody of the sheriff during deliberations; nevertheless, "in order to determine the meaning of the 1933 amendment" he requested counsel to stipulate that the alternates could accompany the regular jurors into the jury room. Giesler and the prosecutor obligingly so stipulated.
Despite this crystal-clear admonition, a year after Collins the trial judge herein repeated the Bruneman error of inviting counsel to stipulate to inclusion of the alternate in the jury room "so in the event it is necessary for her to sit in for somebody else, the jury deliberations will not have to start out from the very beginning." And directly contrary to Collins, he proceeded to instruct that "In the event it is necessary for you to replace one of the other jurors during the course of the deliberations, ... the other jurors won't have to start all over with their deliberations." (Italics added.) Our plain message in Collins had obviously not reached this judge.
The Court of Appeal in Bruneman was unimpressed by the fact that counsel had stipulated to the procedure adopted, for it found the error to have been an invasion of the defendant's right of trial by jury. Consent, it held, could not render the error harmless. (4 Cal.App.2d at p. 81.) In the case at bar the People likewise rely on consent of counsel -- not of defendant personally -- but here the majority erroneously conclude that the attorney's stipulation cures the defect. For this startling departure the majority offer no reasoned analysis of their own, but merely quote from a student comment, from the dissent in Britton (which concedes that the presence of an alternate during deliberations is error), and from two out-of-state cases. I would adhere to California precedent, and on the following grounds I would hold that the error affecting the conduct of the jury persists with or without counsel's consent.
First, a fair jury trial can be achieved only if the jury is insulated from outside communications or influences. (Parker v. Gladden (1966) 385 U.S. 363 [17 L. Ed. 2d 420, 87 S. Ct. 468]; Rakes v. United States (4th Cir. 1948) 169 F.2d 739, 745.) Such communications, even if subtle or unintended, are nonetheless an adulteration of the pristine character of the jury function. It would be understandably difficult for an alternate to remain locked up with regular jurors, perhaps for days, without at some time, during heated discussions, reflecting agreement or disagreement, support or opposition, encouragement or disapproval, praise or derision, hope or frustration, or any of countless other emotions. Even if only one regular juror observed such a response on the part of the alternate -- not necessarily from his speech, but from his gestures, attitude, or facial expressions -- it could well have a tilting effect on the ensuing vote.
Second, the mere presence of a nonparticipant during jury deliberations is likely to have an inhibiting effect upon the free flow of discussion. To permit outsiders in the jury room "not faced with the awful responsibility to decide" (State v. Cuzick (1975) 85 Wn.2d 146 [530 P.2d 288, 290]) creates the danger that those who must decide will be deterred from expressing themselves fully. This may influence the verdict "to an extent which cannot be seen or measured" (People v. Bruneman, supra, 4 Cal.App.2d at p. 81), but which is nonetheless real.
Third, though no law prohibits disclosure, it is preferable that the inevitable meandering of jury deliberations remain confidential. In his 1956 Hamlyn Lecture, Lord Patrick Devlin declared that "What goes on in the jury room is not only to be subject to no interference but it is also to be kept secret." Though conceding that there are no cases on the subject, Lord Devlin noted that "it says a good deal for the sense of responsibility of the average juror that it never seems to have been necessary to decide the point." (Devlin, Trial by Jury (1956) p. 46.) The reticence of the regular jurors to reveal discussion confidences may not be equally felt by the alternates. In People v. Adame (1973) 36 Cal. App. 3d 402, 407 [111 Cal. Rptr. 462], the court cited with approval -- indeed, it italicized for emphasis -- this quotation from People v. Knapp (1879) 42 Mich. 267 [3 N.W. 927, 929]: "The presence of a single other person in the room is an intrusion upon this privacy and confidence, and tends to defeat the purpose for which they are sent out."
There is no rational reason to distinguish the error involved here from any other case of juror misconduct. (People v. Adame, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at p. 411 (conc. opn. of Brown (G. A.), P. J.).) I would therefore apply the general rule and hold that a presumption of prejudice arose in the case at bar. And because the People made no effort to rebut that presumption, I would reverse the judgment under the authorities discussed herein.
FN 1. Prior to amendment in 1933, section 1089 of the Penal Code provided that alternate jurors "shall be discharged upon the final submission of the case to the jury." (Pen. Code, § 1089, as amended by Stats. 1927, ch. 630, § 2, p. 1063.) Since 1933, however, section 1089 has provided for substitution of an alternate for a regular juror, upon a showing of good cause, "at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury."
FN 2. Section 1089 is silent on this point. It provides in relevant part: "[alternate jurors] shall obey the orders of and be bound by the admonition of the court, upon each adjournment of the court; but if the regular jurors are ordered to be kept in the custody of the sheriff or marshal during the trial of the cause, such alternate jurors shall also be kept in confinement with the other jurors; and upon final submission of the case to the jury such alternate jurors shall be kept in the custody of the sheriff or marshal and shall not be discharged until the original jurors are discharged, except as hereinafter provided. [¶] If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order him to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take his place in the jury box, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as though he had been selected as one of the original jurors."
The Bruneman court attached too much significance to the language it quoted. The fact that section 1089 provides that an alternate is not to "take his place in the jury box" until after the discharge of the disqualified regular juror and the drawing of the alternate's name, does not necessarily indicate that permitting a properly instructed alternate into the jury room during deliberations is inconsistent with legislative intent.

References: § 11350
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1089
 § 2