Opinion ID: 1190445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial court's jurisdiction over Juror Magann

Text: (5a) Defendant contends the Alameda County Superior Court was without jurisdiction to try this case because one of the jurors, Marie Magann, resided in Santa Clara County at the time of trial and was therefore not within the trial court's jurisdiction. We reject the contention. During the examination of prospective jurors, Magann informed the court and counsel that she (Magann) was then residing in the town of Morgan Hill in Santa Clara County. This was undisputed. Magann apparently had received a summons for jury duty because she had previously resided in Alameda County, but she had not notified the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) of her change of address. Magann, however, had crossed off her former Alameda County address on her driver's license and had written her Morgan Hill address on the back of the license. The following colloquy then ensued in chambers between the court, Magann, and counsel: Court: As far as not having changed it [with the DMV], you certainly might have said something to the office a long time ago, but at this point it's too late to excuse you. Magann: I didn't want to get into any trouble. Court: As long as we know? Magann: Okay. [Magann then left the chambers conference.] Court: It's my understanding for the record neither side wanted to issue any challenge for cause or give her an excuse; is that right? Prosecutor: That's right. Defense counsel: That is correct, your honor.  (Italics added.) Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) includes within the categories of in eligible jurors, [p]ersons who are not residents of the jurisdiction wherein they are summoned to serve. Respondent contends there was no error under section 203 in allowing Magann to serve as a juror because the evidence was in conflict as to Magann's residence. This assertion is belied by the record. Magann unequivocally stated that she was residing in Santa Clara County at the time of trial and that she had changed her address accordingly on her driver's license. The fact that she had not timely notified the DMV of her address change did not render her a resident of Alameda County, and neither the trial court nor counsel for either party made any such assertion. Respondent also asserts no error because the county residency requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) was not enacted until 1988  after defendant's trial in 1987. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1245, § 2, p. 4144.) Defendant responds that section 203 codified existing law and thus applied to his trial, but he does not identify the existing law to which he is referring. If he means statutory law, he is incorrect. Code of Civil Procedure former section 198, the statutory predecessor to current section 203, provided that a competent juror ... shall have been a resident of the state and of the county or city and county for one year immediately before being selected and returned.... (Stats. 1971, ch. 1748, § 29, p. 3748, italics added.) In 1975, however, the Legislature amended section 198 by deleting the county residency requirement. (Stats. 1975, ch. 172, § 1, p. 317.) Both the language and the history of the 1975 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 198 make clear the Legislature intended to delete the county residency requirement. The amendment was presented in Assembly Bill No. 501 as follows: A person is competent to act as a juror if he be: 1. A citizen of the United States of the age of 18 years who shall have been a resident of the state and of the county or city and county for one year immediately before being selected and returned meets the residency requirements of electors of this state. ... (Assem. Bill No. 501 (1975-1976 Reg. Sess.) § 1, language with strike marks deleted, language in italics added.) The Legislative Counsel's Digest explained, Existing law requires a prospective juror to be a resident of the state and of the county or city and county for one year immediately before being selected and returned. [¶] This bill repeals that provision, and with respect to residency, provides that a person is competent to act as a juror if he meets the residency requirements of electors of this state. (Legis. Counsel's Dig., Assem. Bill No. 501, 2 Stats. 1975 (Reg. Sess.) Summary Dig., p. 45.) The present requirement that a juror must be a resident of the jurisdiction did not reappear until 1988. (Stats. 1988, ch. 1245, § 2, p. 4144.) The 1988 amendment was not a codification of existing statutory law because, at the time of defendant's trial, there was no statutory requirement that a trial juror reside in the county of trial. Because Code of Civil Procedure section 203, subdivision (a)(4) was not enacted until after defendant's trial, we, of course, do not apply or construe that statute in this case except to the extent we have noted that it does not reflect any statutory juror residency requirement existing at the time of defendant's trial. The statutory law at the time of trial, however, is not dispositive of defendant's claim of error. (6) Although he does not frame his challenge to Juror Magann in constitutional terms, The common law vicinage right to trial by jury selected from the vicinage or county is implied in the state Constitution. ( Hernandez v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 713, 721 [263 Cal. Rptr. 513, 781 P.2d 547] ( Hernandez ), citing People v. Powell (1891) 87 Cal. 348, 354-360 [25 P. 481].) In Hernandez, supra, 49 Cal.3d 713, we also considered the vicinage right under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution and held that, [i]n California the boundaries of the vicinage are coterminous with the boundaries of the county.  ( Id., at p. 729, italics added.) (5b) Defendant had a federal and state constitutional right to a trial by jurors who resided in the county where the trial was held. Defendant, however, waived his vicinage right. The trial court specifically asked defendant's counsel whether he wished to challenge Magann, and counsel declined. Moreover, he did so after having extensively questioned Magann on voir dire. We have made clear that a defendant's counsel, even over the explicit objection of his client, may properly waive the vicinage right. ( People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 937 [248 Cal. Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917].) We also have long held that a defendant's objection to a juror's competency, first made after trial, is belated and not cognizable on appeal. ( People v. Evans (1899) 124 Cal. 206, 210 [56 P. 1024]; People v. McFarlane (1903) 138 Cal. 481, 490 [71 P. 568].) Defendant contends he is not subject to this rule because in prior cases the incompetency was not discovered until after the trial, whereas in this case he and the trial court were fully aware of the juror's incompetency. The argument has no basis in common sense or precedent. Defendant asks us to conclude that a defendant (or his counsel) who failed to, but should have discovered a juror's incompetency, is precluded from raising the objection after trial, but that a defendant who accepted the juror despite knowing of the juror's incompetency is allowed to so object. Such is not the law. In People v. Sanford (1872) 43 Cal. 29, a defendant convicted of murder objected for the first time on appeal to a juror's competency on the ground that the juror's name was not on the property tax assessment rolls. We rejected the objection. It was the duty of the defendant in the first place to have examined him [the juror] as to his competency in the respect referred to at the time the jury was impaneled. He does not seem to have made any objection to his competency even afterwards, but took his trial before him with a knowledge of the fact that his name was on the poll tax list only, and not on the real or personal property tax list. Having deliberately taken his chance of a favorable verdict, he cannot be heard to object now that a juror of his own choosing was lacking in a qualification of this technical character. ( Id., at pp. 31-32, italics added.) We more forcefully reiterated this view in People v. Mortier (1881) 58 Cal. 262: `To permit prisoners to avail themselves, after verdict, of preexisting objections to the competency of jurors, as a matter of right, would not only be unreasonable, but most mischievous in its consequences.... A prisoner knowing or willfully remaining ignorant of the incompetency of a juror, would take the chances of a favorable verdict with him upon the jury; and if the verdict should be adverse, would readily enough make the affidavit necessary to avoid its effect.' ( Id., at p. 267, italics added, quoting Commonwealth v. Bristow (Va. 1859) 15 Gratt. 634, 648.) We see no need to depart from the well-established rule. Defendant compounded his waiver by failing to use all his peremptory challenges. [T]o complain on appeal of the composition of the jury, the defendant must have exhausted those challenges. ( People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 770 [251 Cal. Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260].) This rule has a pragmatic foundation: If defendant had genuinely desired his case to be tried by a jury that did not include Juror Magann, defendant could have exercised one of his peremptory challenges to exclude Magann. Having failed to do so, defendant has no fair or cognizable ground for complaint on appeal. In summary, at the time of his trial defendant had no statutory right to only those jurors who resided in the county of trial. He did have a constitutional vicinage right to such jurors, but he waived it as to Juror Magann by declining to object to her despite full knowledge that she was not a resident of the county and by failing to exercise all his peremptory challenges. Even if defendant had not waived his vicinage right, the trial court's allowing her to sit on the jury would not have been reversible error. His counsel extensively questioned Juror Magann on voir dire. Nothing in the record remotely suggests she held any prejudice or bias against defendant, and he does not contend otherwise. Thus, Magann's inclusion in the jury ... did not result in a jury particularly apt to impose the death penalty, and there is no indication that the jury before which defendant was tried was anything other than fair and impartial. ( People v. Coleman, supra, 46 Cal.3d 749, 768.)