Opinion ID: 1351466
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Inquire Into Juror's State of Mind

Text: At the end of defendant's case, a juror was heard to make a derogatory remark apparently directed at defense counsel. This incident occurred after the jury had been excused for a discussion of the scope of cross-examination of a defense witness. When the jury returned, the defense rested and the record reveals an unidentified juror saying, Oh, you son-of-a-. (26a) On appeal, defendant contends that once the court was put on notice that a juror might be biased against his counsel, it had a sua sponte duty to inquire into the state of mind of the juror making the remark to determine if he could still be impartial. Defendant also contends the court should have inquired into the state of mind of the other jurors as well, to discover if they had been influenced by the derogatory comment. (27) We have held that when a court is put on notice that improper or external influences were being brought to bear on a juror ... `it is the court's duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine if the juror should be discharged and whether the impartiality of the other jurors has been affected.' ( People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 518 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251].) Such an inquiry is central to maintaining the integrity of the jury system, and therefore is central to the criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. ( Id. at p. 519.) (26b) In this case, however, the juror's derogatory remark does not appear to be the result of improper or external inferences, but rather his or her momentary exasperation with the proceedings. Because the record shows no such inferences, nor an indication of serious bias, we find that the court's failure to inquire sua sponte into the juror's state of mind is not error.