Opinion ID: 2634388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excusing Juror for Cause

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court committed reversible error and violated his constitutional rights in excusing Juror No. 8812 during trial over his objection. For reasons set forth below, we reject the claim. [8] On the morning of November 3, 1997, the trial court called counsel into chambers and stated: There has been an issue raised with the bailiff, Juror Number [8812]. And we'll see what his problem is. The following exchange then occurred between the court and the juror: The Court: Okay. Yes, sir, good morning, sir. Juror No. 8812: Good morning, Judge. The Court: Sit down. How are you today? Juror No. 8812: Good. The Court: Good, good. Juror No. 8812: I've got a problem. My dad had an operation about 3 weeks ago. And yesterday he decided to stop treatment. And I don't know if that's going to pose a problem. We were told that hehe had a kidney dialysis before. And the doctor said that he might have two days, a couple weeks. And, you know, I don't know if that's going to pose a problem as far as The Court: Well, I mean, the problem is we want to accommodate you, obviously. This is your father, you say, right? Juror No. 8812: Yes. The Court: And obviously it would be a distraction for you. I would assume, worrying about your father. Where is he, by the way? Juror No. 8812: In San Diego. The Court: San Diego? Okay. I gather you want to get down to see him and be with him? Juror No. 8812: We were there yesterday. And basically they accepted what his wishes was [sic ]. But The Court: It's just a question of time, in other words, you're saying? Juror No. 8812: Yes. The Court: Okay. [Defense Counsel]: I have no questions. [The Prosecution]: I have no questions. The Court: Okay. We're going to talk it over, and I'm going to let you go back in. And I'll let you know. Thank you very much. In an ensuing discussion, the court expressed concern about whether or not [Juror No. 8812] would be able to concentrate on this trial, particularly if his father is dying. The court explained: I don't think we're going to have a very receptive juror. He did indicateI think the bottom line is that he does want to get down there with him. Based upon what he told me, I'll find good cause, all right. The prosecution then interjected: For the record, this gentleman had expressed some sort of hardship earlier. And I remember he was one that said he didn't think he could stay the length of the trial. The record will reflect what the nature of the hardship was. But one other time he asked to be excused, at least my understanding is he had problems. The court responded: But I am finding good cause based upon the fathermedical authorities indicating to him there's nothing they can do, and the having at most two weeks. And I got the impression that this juror was obviously visibly concerned by the condition of his father. So I'm going to find good cause and excuse this juror. Defense counsel then stated: I object to that. I do not feel good cause was shown. The father is about 125 miles away.... And it's really uncertain when the father will die. So based upon everything, I do not feel good cause was shown. Back in open court, without the jury present, the court stated: We were notified by the bailiff this morning that Juror Number [8812] had a personal family problem. We conducted a hearing in chambers regarding that problem.... And based upon what was heard in chambers, the court did make a finding of good cause over the objection of defense counsel.... The court then identified the replacement juror. Under section 1089, a court may discharge a juror who, upon ... good cause shown to the court is found unable to perform his or her duty.... We review a trial court's decision to discharge a juror for good cause for abuse of discretion. [Citations.] The juror's inability to perform the functions of a juror must appear in the record as a `demonstrable reality' and will not be presumed. [Citation.] The trial court's finding [that] `good cause' exists will be upheld on appeal if substantial evidence supports it. [Citation.] ( People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1158, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 129 P.3d 321.) We reject defendant's claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it found good cause to discharge Juror No. 8812. We have in the past rejected similar claims in similar circumstances. (See People v. Cunningham [(2001) 25 Cal.4th 926,] 1028-1030[, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 291, 25 P.3d 519] [juror's father near death after suffering stroke]; People v. Ashmus [ (1991) 54 Cal.3d 932,] 986-987[, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 112, 820 P.2d 214] [death of juror's mother]; In re Mendes (1979) 23 Cal.3d 847, 852[, 153 Cal.Rptr. 831, 592 P.2d 318] [death of juror's brother].) ( People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1409-1410, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973 ( Leonard ) [death of juror's father-in-law].) In arguing otherwise, defendant emphasizes that Juror No. 8812 never asked to be discharged. However, in cases involving the death or impending death of a juror's relative, we have rejected the view that a specific request for discharge is necessary to establish good cause; no such request is required. [Citation.] ( Leonard, supra, at p. 1410, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 368, 157 P.3d 973.) Defendant also asserts that, [b]ecause the court cut Juror No. 8812 off when he tried to say what [his] `problem' might be, the record is silent as to whether Juror No. 8812 needed or wanted to be with his father and could continue serving, and improperly engaged in speculation when it assumed that Juror No. 8812's father's condition would be a distraction. However, a juror's behavior and demeanor [may] suppl[y] substantial evidence of good cause for discharge. ( People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 489, 48 Cal. Rptr.2d 525, 907 P.2d 373.) Here, as the People argue, that Juror No. 8812 brought this issue to the court's attention by notifying the bailiff he had a personal family problem is evidence his father's impending death would likely affect his ability to serve. Also supporting this conclusion is the court's observation on the record that Juror No. 8812 was obviously visibly concerned by the condition of his father. [9] Although it may have aided our review had the court questioned Juror No. 8812 regarding his state of mind or had he affirmatively stated on the record his ability and willingness, or lack thereof, such inquiry ... is not required. ( People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 989, 39 Cal. Rptr.2d 607, 891 P.2d 153.) On this record, no abuse of discretion appears.