Opinion ID: 1129438
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Admonish Jury During Each Adjournment

Text: At the commencement of the guilt phase deliberations, the court admonished the jury that it might discuss the case only when all 12 jurors were present in the jury room, that deliberations must cease when any jurors were absent, and that during recess the jurors should refrain from discussing the case with anybody at home, anybody on the jury, court staff, members of the public or anybody at all, until all jurors had returned to the jury room. This admonishment was concededly proper. (See People v. Linden (1959) 52 Cal.2d 1, 29 [338 P.2d 397].) Thereafter, immediately prior to the penalty phase closing arguments, the court announced a lunch break and admonished the jury that, During this recess ... remember again that you are not to discuss the case among yourselves and not to form or express any opinions or conclusions about the issues. Following the closing arguments, and prior to giving the jury instructions, the court adjourned for the day, stating that, I am again going to admonish you and this may be the last time I admonish you in open court. I am sure you remember the admonishment by now. It's that you not discuss the case among yourselves or with anyone else, nor permit anyone to discuss the case with you. [¶] And further remember that you are not to form or express any opinions or conclusions about the issues in the case until I submit it to you for decision. The next morning, the court welcomed the jury, stating, Before I read the instructions to you I want to remind you of some things that I said before. And I am not going to repeat myself entirely about what goes on in deliberations because I have said these things to you after I sent you out after the guilt phase. The court then instructed the jury, and deliberations commenced. (28a) Immediately thereafter, the court asked counsel to stipulate that the jurors might be excused at the usual times without being brought into court and readmonished. Defense counsel declined to so stipulate, requesting that the jury be readmonished during lunch and end-of-day breaks. The court denied the request, observing that the jury already had heard the admonishment about fifty or sixty times. Defendant now contends that the court erred in denying his request for continued readmonishment. He observes that section 1128 by its terms requires that [i]f the jurors are permitted by the court to separate, the court shall properly admonish them. (See also §§ 1121, 1122.) Defendant concedes that he has found no case which requires reversal for failure to readmonish, but he observes that no other case involved a denial of an express request to do so. (29a) The general rule is sometimes phrased in a manner supporting defendant's position. Thus, it has been stated that error in failing to give the required admonition does not require reversal unless the defendant calls the trial court's attention to the omission at the time of the adjournment, or unless the defendant on appeal affirmatively points to prejudice resulting from the omission. ( People v. Campbell (1976) 63 Cal. App.3d 599, 610 [133 Cal. Rptr. 815], italics added.) We believe a more accurate statement of the rule would be that both an objection and proof of prejudice are required before a failure to readmonish would be deemed reversible error. As we stated in People v. Linden, supra, 52 Cal.2d 1, 28-29, [f]ailure to give the statutory admonition is not ground for reversal where, as here, no prejudice appears. [Citations]. (See also People v. Gastelum (1965) 237 Cal. App.2d 205, 207 [46 Cal. Rptr. 743].) (30) Linden further explained that an abbreviated admonition (Remember and abide by the admonition heretofore given) is adequate, and that [t]his is particularly true where no objection is made at the time the abbreviated instruction is given. Thus, Linden may suggest that an objection does not satisfy the necessity of proving prejudice. (29b) Prejudice will not be presumed from a failure to admonish. ( People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 175 [246 Cal. Rptr. 673, 753 P.2d 629]; People v. Campbell, supra, 63 Cal. App.3d 599, 610.) (28b) Defendant points to the fact that, during deliberations, an article appeared in a county newspaper which urged the death penalty for defendant. Counsel requested the court to inquire of the jurors whether they had read the article, but the court failed to do so. Defendant now suggests that the court improperly precluded him from showing prejudice from the failure to readmonish. The People note that the jurors were carefully told to avoid any media coverage of the case, and to divert their attention if they inadvertently became so exposed. The People further observe that defendant failed to move for new trial on this basis (see § 1181, subd. 3), and accordingly failed to submit any juror affidavits which would have supported a showing of prejudice. On this record, given the court's repeated admonishments prior to the penalty phase deliberations, we have no reasonable basis for finding any likelihood of prejudice to defendant from the court's failure to readmonish the jurors.