Opinion ID: 2633370
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Quick Sanity Phase Verdict

Text: Defendant contends he was denied his right to due process, a fair trial, and to be free of cruel and unusual punishment under the state and federal Constitutions by the short duration of the jury's deliberations following the sanity phase of the trial. After presentation of numerous witnesses, expert and lay, over six weeks, raising issues of insanity, mental illness, irresistible impulse, amphetamine abuse, PTSD and child abuse, the jury returned a verdict finding defendant sane after only 42 minutes. Because the jury deliberated for so short a time, defendant claims, we can and should infer the jury failed to fairly and seriously consider the evidence before reaching a verdict, requiring we reverse both the sanity and penalty phase judgments. The trial court addressed this issue in denying the motion for a new trial. [25] The court opined: First of all, it has been contended that the trial took six weeks. Well, in fact it did, spread out over about six weeks, but in my reviewing my trial notes, there were 16 days of testimony, and some of those were partial days because of the unavailability of witnesses at various times. Much of the testimony that was given by some of the witnesses was, shall we say, foundational or background material, really did not . . . bear directly on the specific issue to be decided by the jury, that is, whether or not the defendant was insane when he committed the three offenses for which he was found guilty. And as pointed out by both counsel, it is abundantly clear by the evidence, and indeed admitted by both sides, that the defendant did in fact know right from wrong, or, that is, appreciate the criminality of his conduct at the time it was committed, the first prong of the test to be applied, the second prong being whether or not he could conform his conduct to the law. It seems to me that first of all in 43 minutes the jury did have time to discuss certain matters, 42 minutes, whatever it was. Granted, that is not the most lengthy period of deliberation that the Court has observed, but in light of the fact that all of the witnesses were testifying on basically the same issue, and if the jury went into the jury room, and after discussing what the issues were, determined there really was nothing further to discuss because they were all in agreement, it seems to me that the verdict reached in that length of time is a proper verdict [and it] must be sustained. We agree. As we explained in response to a similar claim that a jury arrived too quickly at a guilty verdict, which the defendant contended indicated the jury improperly considered the possibility of the death penalty at the guilt phase, [i]t appears much more likely . . . the relatively short duration of the jury's deliberations simply reflected the strength of the prosecution's case. [ People v. Robertson (1982) 33 Cal.3d 21, 36, 188 Cal.Rptr. 77, 655 P.2d 279; cf. People v. Williams, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 229, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710 [Defendant's mere speculation that his jury cut short its [guilt] deliberations out of prejudice [based solely on the fact that they deliberated for less than two hours] does not establish `good cause' to reopen voir dire prior to the penalty phase].) We find defendant was not denied any state or federal constitutional rights by the jury's short sanity phase deliberations.