Opinion ID: 1155625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Trial Court's Failure to Admonish the Jurors Under Section 1122

Text: During the trial of a criminal charge, the court must admonish the jurors at each adjournment that it is their duty not to converse among themselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with the trial, or to form or express any opinion thereon until the cause is finally submitted to them. (§ 1122.) (8) Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to give this admonition at the close of the two court days immediately preceding the testimony of defense witness Russo. Although the record reflects that the trial court failed to give the statutorily mandated admonition on the days in question, defendant demonstrates no prejudice. Defendant's only theory of prejudice is that omission of the admonition resulted in a conversation between jurors about the testimony of defense witness Russo. To establish that such a conversation occurred, defendant cites the testimony of a defense investigator, which we discussed in the preceding section, that the investigator overheard a fragment of a conversation between three jurors. But, as we have already concluded, the investigator's testimony is insufficient to establish that the jurors discussed Russo's testimony. Accordingly, defendant has not shown he was prejudiced by the trial court's omission of the jury admonition. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 173-174 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629].)