Opinion ID: 2600470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discharge of Juror

Text: During jury deliberations at the guilt phase of the trial, the trial court discharged Juror Robert L., over defendant's objection, after receiving information from the jury foreperson that the juror had fallen asleep on two occasions. Defendant contends that this violated his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the federal Constitution. On July 25, 1989, during the closing arguments of counsel, one of the jurors sent the court a note that read as follows: As a seated juror in this case, I must state my concern regarding juror #3, Mr. L[.]. As you are aware I am sure, he tends to catnap during the day. [¶] I am concerned with the fact that he has surely missed a great percentage of the testimony throughout this trial. [¶] Since we are nearing deliberations, I am concerned that he will not be able to input with total knowledge of what was testified to during the trial. [¶] This is also a concern of several of the other jurors and we were wondering if anything could be done to correct this situation. In response, the court admonished the jury that it was important to be attentive, adding: But if any of you feel that you have missed any of the evidence in a significant way ... it is incumbent upon you, under the oath that you took as a juror, to bring that to the court's attention. It is no disgrace. These things happen. On August 11, 1989, the 13th day of guilt phase deliberations, the trial court informed counsel that it had received from the jury foreperson a note that read: Your Honor, Fellow jurors have brought it to my attention that juror # 3 Mr. Robert L.] has fallen asleep on two occasions during our deliberations. I also have seen him not quite as attentive as a result of his dozing off. As foreman I find it my responsibility to bring this to your attention. The court stated: This is the juror that we have noticed behaving as if he were dozing off from time to time. It now appears that several jurors have indicated thatto the foreman that he hasor has fallen asleep. I'm disappointed, but I guess not exactly surprised. The trial judge remarked that he could not say the juror has slept, but he certainly has jerked his head up abruptly from time to time as if he were nodding off or had nodded off and was awakening, but I cannot say that I have ever found him to be asleep. The court conducted a hearing and asked the jury foreperson whether he had actually seen the juror asleep. The foreperson answered: Yes, sir. Actually, I believe it was Tuesday, right before lunchtime, I believe about 11:30, he was sitting there and we're carrying on our normal deliberations, and you know, you could see he was nodding and then he just stood there, I would say about maybe a good four to five minutes maybe. And also I believe Wednesday after lunch, you know, we returned from lunch, we were sitting there right around maybe little bit about two o'clock, you know, I made a mental note of it, and he was sitting there. Again, you know, he was nodding and he was asleep because I could hear him snoring.... The court dismissed the juror over defendant's objection, stating: I have from time to time observed Mr. L[.], as I have indicated before, nodding, and it seemed somewhat clear thatthat Mr. L[.] was asleep or dozing or catnapping or doing something other than paying rapt attention to the proceedings. I probably, in an attempt not to embarrass Mr. L[.] too much, made some remarks to the jury in general and was looking at him in particular as I was making these remarks with regards to paying attention ... but he even during argument occasionally would again bounce his head up and down quickly as if rudely awakening himself or something of that nature. The court finds that although I gave Mr. L[.] ... the benefit of a reasonable doubt prior to today with regard to his attentiveness ... it now is quite clear that good cause exists to excuse him because of his sleeping. The court dismissed the juror, replaced him with one of the alternate jurors, and instructed the jury to begin its deliberations anew. A trial court's authority to discharge a juror is granted by Penal Code section 1089, which provides in pertinent part: `If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other 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 therefor, the court may order him to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take his place in the jury box, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as though he had been selected as one of the original jurors.' (Italics added; see also Code Civ. Proc., §§ 233, 234.) `We review for abuse of discretion the trial court's determination to discharge a juror and order an alternate to serve. [Citation.] If there is any substantial evidence supporting the trial court's ruling, we will uphold it. [Citation.] We have also stated, however, that a juror's inability to perform as a juror must `appear in the record as a demonstrable reality.' [Citation.]' [Citation.] ( People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 447-448, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209, fn. omitted.) A trial court does not abuse its discretion if it discharges a juror who falls asleep during the trial. ( People v. Johnson (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1, 22, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 593, 859 P.2d 673.) As we stated in Johnson, the court's ruling excusing [the juror] can be sustained solely on the basis of its finding that [the juror] had fallen asleep during trial. ( Ibid. ) In the present case, the trial judge had observed that the juror had difficulty paying attention during trial and appeared to fall asleep. The judge's observations were consistent with the testimony of the jury foreperson that the juror had fallen asleep twice during deliberations. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in discharging the juror.