Opinion ID: 1184860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of defendant's motion for a mistrial on grounds of misconduct of jurors

Text: [11] When defendant accepted his advisory attorneys in a full representative capacity on the second day of trial, after the jury had been selected, counsel moved promptly for a mistrial on grounds of improper voir dire and composition of the jury. Defendant claims that since Juror Hickey had been excused for cause at the first penalty trial, he should not have been permitted to serve on the second jury, that inconsistencies in his response to questions on voir dire constituted misconduct, and that defendant did not knowingly and intelligently waive counsel at voir dire. Defendant, during the first day of trial, doggedly refused to accept court-appointed counsel or to participate in the selection of the jury, despite the court's patient and persistent attempts to convince him of his need for assistance. The court virtually assumed the role of defense counsel in questioning prospective jurors. When defendant's appointed counsel called to the attention of the court on the second day the fact that Juror Hickey had previously been excused for cause at the penalty trial three years before, the court conducted a further examination of Hickey in chambers. Hickey had been excused at the first penalty trial because of his acquaintance with Mr. Miller, the father of the victim. At the present trial, however, the court probed deeply into the nature of his relationship with Miller and found that Hickey had been only slightly acquainted with him before the first trial and had not seen him since that time. The court closely questioned Hickey's ability to render a fair and impartial verdict: JUROR HICKEY: I guess I didn't understand the question just right. I thought it meant was I a personal friend of him, you know. I am not.... THE COURT: You are not saying that you didn't know any of these people because you just wanted to get on this jury, that is not it? ... You told us you believed you had no fixed opinions or beliefs? JUROR HICKEY: No, I was going in there with a clear mind, and following instructions, to try to do it right.... THE COURT: Do you think you meet all of those qualifications, Mr. Hickey? JUROR HICKEY: Yes, I still believe I could. Defendant claims that Juror Hickey should have been discharged because of his alleged misconduct, and, further, should have been disqualified because his answers to voir dire questions disclosed his fixed opinion on the issue of penalty. But surely the resolution of these questions rested with the trial court. The trial court conducted a hearing on the ground of the alleged misconduct; it weighed and decided the question of alleged discrimination. Even assuming that the evidence of misconduct was conflicting, the trial court's resolution of that conflict is binding on the appellate court. ( People v. Daugherty (1953) 40 Cal.2d 876, 890 [256 P.2d 911]; People v. Abbott (1956) 47 Cal.2d 362, 371 [303 P.2d 730].)