Opinion ID: 2632907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Expressing an opinion about the accuracy of the murder weapon

Text: In declarations submitted by defendant in support of his new trial motion, Jurors 2, 3, and 5 mentioned that during the deliberations Juror 7 said he had experience firing handguns, and that the murder weapon was an up close and personal gun that could be accurately fired at close range without expertise. Juror 12 stated, without elaboration, that Juror 7 told the jury that he had `plenty of experience firing handguns.' Defendant argues that Juror 7 committed misconduct by introducing into deliberations extrinsic evidence, derived from his own expertise, which contradicted the testimony of the defense expert. We disagree. A jury's verdict in a criminal case must be based on the evidence presented at trial, not on extrinsic matters. ( People v. Nesler, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 578, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 454, 941 P.2d 87.) Nevertheless, jurors may rely on their own experiences in evaluating the testimony of the witnesses. Jurors do not enter deliberations with their personal histories erased, in essence retaining only the experience of the trial itself. Jurors are expected to be fully functioning human beings, bringing diverse backgrounds and experiences to the matter before them. ( Moore v. Preventive Medicine Medical Group, Inc. (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 728, 741-742, 223 Cal.Rptr. 859.) Jurors bring to their deliberations knowledge and beliefs about general matters of law and fact that find their source in everyday life and experience. That they do so is one of the strengths of the jury system. It is also one of its weaknesses: it has the potential to undermine determinations that should be made exclusively on the evidence introduced by the parties and the instructions given by the court. Such a weakness, however, must be tolerated.... [Otherwise,] few verdicts would be proof against challenge. ( People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 950, 269 Cal.Rptr. 269, 790 P.2d 676.) Here, Juror 7 relied on his personal experience with firearms to form an opinion about the accuracy of the murder weapon, and he mentioned his experience to the other jurors when expressing his views during deliberations. His comments were a normal part of jury deliberations and were not misconduct. (See generally People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 162, 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166 [jurors' comments regarding drug use by family members and the jurors themselves were not misconduct]; People v. Fauber (1992) 2 Cal.4th 792, 838-839, 9 Cal. Rptr.2d 24, 831 P.2d 249 [same].)