Opinion ID: 1254168
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Appellant's Showing.

Text: A new trial may be granted when a jury receives any evidence out of court other than a view of the scene or if the jury has engaged in misconduct which has prevented fair and due consideration of the case. (§ 1181, subds. 2 & 3.) When allegations of juror misconduct made in a criminal trial raise a presumption of prejudice, the court is not limited, as it would be in a civil case, to consideration of evidence presented by affidavit or declaration to resolve whether a new trial motion should be granted. The court may conduct an evidentiary hearing, at which jurors may testify, to determine the truth of the allegations if the court concludes this is necessary to resolve material, disputed issues of fact. ( People v. Hedgecock (1990) 51 Cal.3d 395, 414-419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260 ( Hedgecock ).) Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined. (Evid.Code, § 1150, subd. (a).) When a trial court is aware of possible juror misconduct, the court must `make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary'  to resolve the matter. ( Hedgecock, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 417, 272 Cal. Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260.) It must do so, however, only when the defense comes forward with evidence that demonstrates a strong possibility of prejudicial misconduct. ( Id. at p. 419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260.) Normally, hearsay is not sufficient to trigger the court's duty to make further inquiries into a claim of juror misconduct. A similar claim was made in People v. Cox (1991) 53 Cal.3d 618, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351, where the appellant had offered to submit both the unsworn statement of a juror and a defense investigator's affidavit recounting the juror's statement to the investigator regarding alleged juror misconduct. We found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the new trial motion without a hearing, noting that the court was justified in according little, if any, credence to the assertions the juror would not verify. ( Id. at pp. 697-698, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351; see also Hedgecock, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260; People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1318-1319, 248 Cal.Rptr. 834, 756 P.2d 221.) Here, in contrast to People v. Cox, supra, 53 Cal.3d 618, 280 Cal.Rptr. 692, 809 P.2d 351, the only evidence offered in support of the juror misconduct claim were the statements of Minsloff and Love regarding out-of-court statements by Juror Wynn. No statement, sworn or unsworn, of Juror Wynn herself was offered. The court had before it competent evidence that the misconduct Wynn assertedly recounted to defense counsel and his investigator did not occur. In these circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the new trial motion without further inquiry into the claim of jury misconduct. [6]