Opinion ID: 1155625
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Failure to Inquire Whether a Certain Juror Might Have Been Sleeping During the Presentation of Testimony

Text: During the prosecutor's preliminary direct examination questioning of a witness, the defense attorney asked for a brief conference in chambers. Thereafter, out of the jury's presence, defense counsel mentioned that a certain juror appeared to be asleep. When the trial court replied it had not observed any sleeping juror, defense counsel did not press the matter, but suggested only that the interruption of the testimony and the adjournment had likely awakened the juror. (6) Defendant now contends that the trial court's failure to determine whether, in fact, the juror had been sleeping was error requiring reversal. We reject this contention. A trial court may discharge a juror who becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his [or her] duty, ... (§ 1089, 5th par.) Once a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, it is the court's duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine whether the juror should be discharged. ( People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 520 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251].) We have recently explained, however, that the mere suggestion of juror inattention does not require a formal hearing disrupting the trial of a case. ( People v. DeSantis (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1198, 1234 [9 Cal. Rptr.2d 628, 831 P.2d 1210].) Here, defense counsel stated that, after watching the juror in question for several seconds, he thought the juror appeared to be asleep. Counsel's mere speculation that the juror might have been sleeping, which was insufficient to apprise the trial court that good cause to discharge might exist, did not obligate the court to conduct any further inquiry.