Opinion ID: 2575903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Effect on Jury of Defendant's Misconduct During the Trial

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court violated his right to an impartial jury under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution and article I, section 16 of the California Constitution by denying his motion to voir dire the seated jurors to determine whether his misconduct had prejudiced them. Defendant misbehaved on several occasions. He telephoned certain jurors from jail. He struck Carolyn Roundey, one of his two defense counsel, knocking her to the ground and causing jurors to react in alarm. After the assaultive incident, defendant unsuccessfully moved to voir dire the jurors on whether each could remain impartial. Defendant's claim must be rejected at the threshold in light of People v. Williams (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1127, 245 Cal. Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901, in which, considering similar events, we upheld the trial court's refusal to permit voir dire to determine if the defendant's disruptive in-court conduct had prejudiced the jury. ( Id. at pp. 1155-1157, 245 Cal.Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901.) To be sure, in Williams we commented that it might have been useful to voir dire the jury regarding the defendant's conduct, and ruled against him solely on the ground that any error in failing to do so was harmless under the circumstances. ( Id. at pp. 1156-1157, 245 Cal. Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901.) But we also noted that As a matter of policy, a defendant is not permitted to profit from his own misconduct. ( Id. at p. 1156, 245 Cal. Rptr. 635, 751 P.2d 901.) We adhere to that view here. Defendant may not complain on appeal about the possible effect on jurors of his own misbehavior after the jury has been sworn. ( People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 643, 244 Cal. Rptr. 181, 749 P.2d 836; see People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1054, 64 Cal. Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388 [rejecting a claim of juror misconduct on the ground that if any occurred the defendant invited it, and citing with approval the policy statement in Williams ]; see also People v. Gomez (1953) 41 Cal.2d 150, 162, 258 P.2d 825 [during voir dire defendant attempted to escape, causing a commotion; doctrine of invited error applied to reject contention that the trial court should have discharged the jury panel].)