Opinion ID: 2594806
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Discharge Juror

Text: Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to discharge a juror who informed the court that she had received a telephone call from someone whose voice she did not recognize, but who identified himself as Carl. The juror explained that the only reason she brought the matter to the court's attention was her concern about whether defendant  whose middle name is Carl  had access to her telephone number. Upon being assured by the court that defendant did not have such access, she agreed that the call was likely a crank call. When asked by the court whether she was confident she could be a fair and impartial juror, the juror answered affirmatively. After the juror left the courtroom, the defense requested that she be discharged. The request was denied. Section 1089 provides in 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 or her duty, ... the court may order the juror to be discharged.... Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror's inability to perform a juror's functions must be shown by the record to be a `demonstrable reality.' The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court's exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] ( People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 659, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 782, 937 P.2d 213; People v. Farnam (2002) 28 Cal.4th 107, 141, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 106, 47 P.3d 988.) The record before us does not show that the juror was unable to fulfill her functions as a demonstrable reality. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to retain the juror.