Opinion ID: 1442323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Questions From Jury

Text: During the penalty phase, various individual jurors directed written questions to the court. One juror asked for more detail regarding the evidence of defendant's participation in the prison chapel program and its effect on him. The next day, another juror inquired about such matters as defendant's whereabouts when his son was born, his marital status, and his feelings toward his son. Subsequently, a third juror asked whether a person sentenced to life imprisonment without parole is segregated from the general prison population, could attain trustee status, or could be released from prison at some future time. Defendant asserts two separate claims of error arising from these questions and the court's responses thereto.
(28) Defendant first claims the jury committed misconduct by prematurely submitting the foregoing questions to the court prior to starting its deliberations. Defendant observes that deliberations do not commence until all evidence is presented and the jury is instructed. Until that time, the jurors should not converse with each other or form or express any opinion about the case. (§ 1122.) We find no misconduct here. The authorities cited by defendant in support of his theory of premature deliberation are inapposite, as none of them suggests that mere questions from individual jurors prior to actual deliberations constitute jury misconduct. (See, e.g., People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 206-207 [155 Cal. Rptr. 657, 595 P.2d 91] [prior to conclusion of defense case, juror discussed case with police officer/witness]; People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal. App.3d 476, 480-481 [132 Cal. Rptr. 217] [prior to conclusion of People's case, juror expressed to other juror his opinion of defendant's guilt].) As noted in People v. McAlister (1985) 167 Cal. App.3d 633, 644 [213 Cal. Rptr. 271], In a proper case there may be a real benefit from allowing jurors to submit questions [to witnesses] under proper control by the court. Contrary to defendant's thesis, we do not believe that the questions tendered here indicated the jurors had commenced their deliberations or had formed any tentative conclusions regarding the appropriate penalty. Accordingly, we cannot conclude the questions posed here constituted misconduct.
As previously indicated, some of the jurors' inquiries concerned the status, privileges and potential for release of a prisoner serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole. Responding to the potential for release, the court stated that Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole means exactly that, admonishing the jurors not to assume anything other than death means death by execution in the gas chamber; life without possibility of parole means imprisonment for the rest of his natural life. Defendant does not suggest the court's response was inadequate or improper in any way. (See, e.g., People v. Caro (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1035, 1064-1065 [251 Cal. Rptr. 757, 761 P.2d 680].) (29) In response to the jury's other inquiries, however, the court stated in essence that no evidence had been received on these points, and no one was available to testify competently about them. Defendant argues this response, though technically correct, was inadequate, failing to constitute a firm reiteration that LWOP [life imprisonment without parole] meant LWOP and that there was nothing in the law or in the way the state prison system operated that ameliorated the LWOP sentence. We disagree. The court's response essentially advised the jury not to speculate regarding the possible privileges and conditions of prison confinement. In light of the court's additional response to the basic question whether defendant might someday be released to society, the jury could not possibly have been misled in the matter.