Opinion ID: 2507905
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Outside Sources.

Text: It is improper for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case, and to discuss the case with nonjurors. ( In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 647, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665, 889 P.2d 985.) When such misconduct is determined to be prejudicial, reversal is required. ( Id. at pp. 650-651, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665, 889 P.2d 985.) Cecile Q., the sole juror called to testify at the hearing, was ambiguous as to whether Juror Renee P. had consulted outside sources. She first stated that Renee P. had done research on the point of whether April had been alive at the time of the rape. She explained what ... research she had done, and we listened.... Then we discussed it. But she conceded that she could not recall when Renee P. had made this statement or when she had done the research. She also hedged her statement: Maybe I just, we just assumed that it was a research thing. In other words, she had, she had access to the books, or ... the medical library. Maybe. I don't know. The defense attorney also questioned Cecile Q., ultimately receiving responses that indicated there was no consultation of outside materials. She stated, I don't remember anybody saying exactly if they were going to a library or if it was mentioned and if they really did. She also equivocated, I'm not really sure, a hundred percent sure. I know that the subject was brought up, but whether they really did it, I don't know. The defense attorney again asked who brought up the subject of consulting other books, to which she stated that Renee P. did discuss it, but did not mention that she had consulted books at home or at a library. Further, she stated that at no point did jurors return from a recess with additional information they had not had previously. The trial court ruled that the defense had not established that outside sources were brought into the room. It therefore reaffirmed its earlier ruling that no misconduct occurred. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in so ruling. ( People v. McPeters, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 1175, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.)