Opinion ID: 2520120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: What portions of the declarations are admissible?

Text: In order to determine whether there was juror misconduct and if so, prejudice, we first consider what portions of the declarations are admissible. Evidence Code section 1150, subdivision (a), provides: 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. This statute distinguishes `between proof of overt acts, objectively ascertainable, and proof of the subjective reasoning processes of the individual juror, which can be neither corroborated nor disproved....' ( People v. Steele (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1230, 1261, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225.) `This limitation prevents one juror from upsetting a verdict of the whole jury by impugning his own or his fellow jurors' mental processes or reasons for assent or dissent. The only improper influences that may be proved under [Evidence Code] section 1150 to impeach a verdict, therefore, are those open to sight, hearing, and the other senses and thus subject to corroboration.' ( Steele, at p. 1261, 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 47 P.3d 225.) Here, certain portions of the declarations, which have been italicized, relate solely to the mental processes and subjective reasoning of the declarant juror regarding the penalty deliberations, and hence cannot be considered. Other portions, which have also been italicized, involve mental processes or subjective reasoning that while not directly related to the penalty deliberations, are irrelevant to any issue we are considering. Thus, we may not consider why Juror K.A. was experiencing stress, or what verdict she was leaning toward. Nor may we consider the reasons Juror B.P. voted for the death penalty. (See Hedgecock, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 419, 272 Cal.Rptr. 803, 795 P.2d 1260 [when a juror in the course of deliberations gives the reasons for his or her vote, the words are simply a verbal reflection of the juror's mental processes. Consideration of such a statement as evidence of those processes is barred by Evidence Code section 1150].)