Opinion ID: 1447881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Failure to Read Back Testimony to Jury

Text: Under section 1138, the jury has a right to rehear testimony during its deliberations. During penalty phase deliberations, the jury asked to rehear the testimony of defense witnesses Dave Wader (defendant's father), William Wader (defendant's uncle), Helen Wader (defendant's stepmother), and Robert Mungie (brother of defendant's stepmother). (32) Defendant contends that the penalty phase verdict may be unreliable because it is unclear whether the testimony the jury sought to rehear was indeed read back to the jury. Neither the clerk's transcript nor the reporter's transcript definitively shows that the jury's requested readbacks of the testimony in question occurred. But approximately one and one-half years after trial, the trial court and all counsel discussed this matter at a hearing on defendant's motion to correct, augment and settle the record. None could recall specifically whether or not the testimony at issue had been read back to the jury. The trial court stated, however: I can tell you that those portions of the testimony were in fact reread based on what my common practice is. And I think that both counsel will agree that in all probability, that happened. To a certainty, I would say. The proposed settled statement reflects that the trial judge accompanied the court reporter into the jury room and asked the court reporter to read back the requested testimony, and then left the room. [10] It is reasonable to assume that the court reporter did reread the testimony to the jury, as the trial court apparently instructed. It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed.... (Evid. Code, ง 664.) This presumption applies to actions by trial judges and court clerks. (E.g., People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1056-1057; Younesi v. Lane (1991) 228 Cal. App.3d 967, 974 [279 Cal. Rptr. 89]; see In re Marriage of Patscheck (1986) 180 Cal. App.3d 800, 803[225 Cal. Rptr. 787].) We see no reason why it should not apply to court reporters as well. In light of this presumption and in the absence of any showing that the readbacks did not in fact take place, we find no error.