Opinion ID: 1442323
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Court Comments Effectively Directing a Verdict

Text: (7) Defendant contends that additional trial court comments essentially directed the jury to find true the special circumstance allegation, and that these comments require reversal of the judgment. We disagree. The court at one point noted its reasonable expectation that deliberations would commence on Thursday, December 19, that very likely a special circumstance verdict would be reached on that day, and that any further deliberations, if needed, would take place the following day in view of the forthcoming holiday recess. Thereafter, prior to closing arguments, the court indicated the issue of defendant's intent to kill was a fairly simple question, and stated that presumably a verdict would be reached within two or three hours. Defendant did not object to the foregoing remarks, and accordingly waived any claim of error based thereon. ( People v. Terry, supra, 2 Cal.3d 362, 398; People v. Cheary, supra, 48 Cal.2d 301, 316.) On the merits, the court's statements do approach the kind of coercive conduct deemed improper in prior cases. In People v. Keenan (1988) 46 Cal.3d 478, 534 [250 Cal. Rptr. 550, 758 P.2d 1081], we admonished that A trial judge should refrain from placing specific time pressure on a deliberating jury and should never imply that the case warrants only desultory deliberation. Such comments risk persuading legitimate dissidents, whatever their views, that the court considers their position unreasonable. (See also People v. Rodriguez (1986) 42 Cal.3d 730, 775 [230 Cal. Rptr. 667, 726 P.2d 113] [coercion through insistence on further deliberations].) Here, of course, the jury had not yet commenced its deliberations and no dissidents had yet voiced their concerns. Nonetheless, we think trial judges should avoid any potentially coercive predictions, at any stage of the trial, concerning the ease with which the jury should decide the case or particular issues. In any event, as previously explained, any error in the determination of the intent to kill issue was necessarily harmless in light of People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d 1104. In addition, it is not reasonably possible the court's remarks, directed to the special circumstance issue, could have affected the jury's penalty decision.