Opinion ID: 1155625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Juror's Comment on a Defense Witness

Text: One of the defense witnesses was Andora Russo, the 17-year-old niece of defendant's wife. At the time of the killings of Rayna R. and Nancy R., Russo lived with defendant and his wife in their apartment. Russo's testimony was quite short, essentially consisting of her denial that she had heard the early-morning argument between defendant and another man about the killings. At the conclusion of Russo's testimony, the court recessed the trial for five minutes. Thereafter, defense counsel advised the court that his investigator had heard a juror make a comment that counsel interpreted to be about Ms. Russo. Sworn as a witness, the investigator testified that as he was leaving the courtroom, followed by three or four male jurors, he overheard this fragment of a comment by one of the jurors, that 21-year-old body looking as bad as mine. The trial court concluded that the comment could not have been about Russo, because she had just testified that her age was 17. Defense counsel then said that the juror's comment was probably not significant. (7) Defendant now argues that the trial court erred in failing to inquire further into the possibility that the jurors committed misconduct by discussing defense witness Russo or her testimony. We disagree. A court on notice of the possibility of juror misconduct must undertake an inquiry sufficient `to determine if the juror should be discharged and whether the impartiality of other jurors had been affected.' ( People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1175 [270 Cal. Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965], quoting People v. McNeal (1979) 90 Cal. App.3d 830, 839 [153 Cal. Rptr. 706], italics omitted.) As mentioned above, the trial court in this case did conduct such an inquiry. Immediately after defense counsel raised the issue, the court questioned the defense investigator. His testimony failed to establish that the three jurors were discussing defense witness Russo, and provided no basis from which to infer that any juror had engaged in misconduct. Under these circumstances, no additional inquiry was warranted.