Opinion ID: 1172635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Replace Juror Rogers

Text: (38) Defendant contends the trial court committed reversible error in failing to replace Juror Rogers with an alternate. After Juror Rogers indicated to the court clerk that, if the case lasted too much longer, she might not be physically able to continue to serve as a juror, the trial judge asked her to come into the courtroom, with counsel present, but outside the presence of the jury. The court told Rogers that counsel estimated the trial would last about one more week, and asked: Would one more week or soon thereafter cause you any great problems? Rogers responded: I have the faith to keep going, and said that she felt better after lunch. The court then stated: At any time that you feel you would have problems, just let me know. Rogers responded, I appreciate that. After this colloquy, the trial judge asked defense counsel if they had any questions they would like to ask Juror Rogers; each answered, No, your honor. Rogers continued to serve on defendant's jury, which began deliberations 10 days later. Defendant argues the trial court erred in failing to inquire further into the problems Juror Rogers was having and in failing to ask her about possible prejudice or bias she might have with respect to the case. We do not agree. [A]n inquiry sufficient to determine the facts is required whenever the court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist. ( People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 519.) If a juror upon good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefore, the court may order him to be discharged and substitute an alternate juror. (§ 1089.) `A good cause determination in this context is one calling for the exercise of the court's discretion [citations], and if there is any substantial evidence supporting the decision, it will be upheld on appeal. [Citation].' ( People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 520, quoting People v. Van Houten, supra, 113 Cal. App.3d at p. 288.) Juror Rogers's statements to the clerk were sufficient to raise the possibility she was physically unable to continue serving as a juror. (Cf. People v. Burgener, supra, 41 Cal.3d at p. 520.) Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the trial judge to conduct an inquiry sufficient to establish whether good cause for her discharge existed. ( Id. at pp. 520-521.) This the trial judge did. Rogers, in defense counsel's presence, answered questions put to her by the judge. Defense counsel was afforded an express opportunity to ask any additional questions. Rogers indicated she felt able to continue as a juror, and nothing in the record indicates she experienced any further problems, let alone that her ability to function competently as a juror was impaired. Nor was there ever any suggestion that Juror Rogers was subject to bias or prejudice. Bias in a juror may not be presumed ( People v. Collins, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 696), and the trial court here had no basis for further questioning of Rogers on that topic. Before a trial court may excuse a juror for inability to perform the juror's functions, `that inability must appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.' ( Ibid., quoting People v. Compton (1971) 6 Cal.3d 55, 60 [98 Cal. Rptr. 217, 490 P.2d 537].) Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to discharge Rogers from the jury.