Opinion ID: 2630185
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharge of a Juror at the Penalty Phase

Text: During penalty phase deliberations, Juror L.R. asked to be excused from further service. The trial court ultimately granted her request on the ground that she was incapable of continuing to deliberate because of great mental distress. Defendant asserts the excusal of L.R. violated his right to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution because the trial court discharged her without cause, failed to adequately investigate misconduct by the other jurors, and failed to give adequate supplemental instructions to the jury before and after the discharge. We discern no error in the trial court's handling of this matter.

During penalty phase deliberations, the trial court received a note stating that Jurors L.R. and D.P. needed to speak with the court. The court permitted each juror to address the court individually, with only defendant and the attorneys present. [17] L.R. told the court the following: She had felt pressured at the end of the guilt phase and had gone along with a decision she was not 100 percent sure of. The jury had agreed to go along with the not true finding on the personal gun use allegation because she refused to find it true. Now that she was deliberating the penalty, she was feeling a lot of pressure. There was still a lot of doubt in her mind, which she tried pointing out to the other jurors. After questions by the trial court, L.R. stated she had a reasonable doubt about her verdict in the guilt phase and wished to retract it. The court had L.R. leave the room while it discussed with counsel how to proceed. The court determined that, under Evidence Code section 1150, the guilt verdict could not now be undone based on L.R.'s testimony about the jurors' mental processes, but it left open the possibility the defense could raise the issue in a motion for a new trial. The court had L.R. return and questioned her to determine whether she could continue as a juror in the penalty phase. She stated she could not. The court then brought in and questioned Juror D.P. privately. D.P. stated that she had been rushed at the guilt phase. The stress of the current deliberations in the penalty phase had made her sick the whole weekend, and she had migraines and was losing her hair. She could not make a decision in the penalty phase because she did not feel comfortable with what she had done in the guilt phase. After Juror D.P. left, the court again asked the parties how to proceed. Defense counsel argued that L.R. and D.P. were expressing their lingering doubt about defendant's guilt, which, counsel contended, was an appropriate consideration in the penalty phase and should not be grounds for removal. Counsel requested that the court ask L.R. and D.P. whether the reason they felt they could not continue to deliberate was because the other jurors were telling them they should vote for the death penalty even though they had a lingering doubt about defendant's guilt. The trial court denied counsel's request to pursue this line of questioning, stating: I'm treading a very thin line here, because I do not want to go behind the verdict into the mental processes by which that verdict was reached, or into the interaction between the different jurors, because that's impeaching the verdict improperly. The trial court said it would question the two jurors further solely on the issue of whether they were capable of continuing to deliberate. The trial court brought L.R. back into court and asked her whether she felt capable at this point in time of continuing to deliberate with [her] fellow jurors. She responded in the negative. Upon further questioning, she stated: If I have to, I will get a doctor's excuse. I have not been able to sleep from the first time we were in the deliberating room.... And frankly, right now I'm ready to run out that door. I do not want to be here any longer. I don't want to talk to any other jurors. The trial court told her it would excuse her. After L.R. left, the trial court announced its factual findings, stating that L.R. was clearly and obviously in very great distress. She could hardly maintain her seat. All she wanted to do was get out of here.... It would have been a cruel imposition to leave her in this situation on the jury.... [J]udged on her demeanor and her physical behavior in the courtroom, she was both physically and mentally incapable of continuing with deliberations as a trial juror, regardless of the reasons behind that. The court then brought D.P. back into court and asked her whether she was capable of reaching a decision in the penalty phase as to the appropriate penalty. D.P. indicated she was not incapable of deliberating, but the decision she had reached was not that of the other jurors. The trial court advised D.P. it was perfectly acceptable for her to have formed conclusions and opinions, but it was also her duty to discuss them with the other jurors. After D.P. stated she was comfortable with that and comfortable with staying on the jury, the trial court returned her to the jury.
(18) 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, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order the juror to be discharged .... (ง 1089.) Removal of a juror under section 1089 is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review such decisions by asking whether the grounds for such removal appear in the record as a demonstrable reality. ( People v. Wilson, supra, 44 Cal.4th at p. 824.) Defendant first contends the trial court abused its discretion because it did not adequately investigate misconduct by the other jurors before it discharged L.R. Defendant contends the trial court should have questioned the other jurors to determine whether they were causing the stress to L.R. and D.P. by impermissibly pressuring them to give up their lingering doubt about defendant's guilt. As we have cautioned, however, a trial court's inquiry into possible grounds for discharge of a deliberating juror should be as limited in scope as possible, to avoid intruding unnecessarily upon the sanctity of the jury's deliberations. The inquiry should focus upon the conduct of the jurors, rather than upon the content of the deliberations. ( People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485 [106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225].) Here, the source of the tension reported by L.R. and D.P. was the deliberations themselves, and the trial court therefore acted within its discretion in not examining the other jurors, because to do so would have threatened to intrude on the deliberation process. Defendant contends the other jurors may have been making insulting remarks in an effort to drive L.R. and D.P. off the jury or were threatening them in some credible way. But that is speculation because the trial court's questioning of L.R. and D.P. revealed no suggestion of such actions by the other jurors. Because there was no indication of misconduct by the other jurors, the trial court acted within its discretion in limiting its inquiry to questioning L.R. and D.P., which, as detailed above, the court performed quite thoroughly. Second, defendant contends the trial court dismissed L.R. without cause. He does not dispute the trial court's findings as to L.R.'s extremely agitated emotional state when she asked to be excused. Defendant's contention depends on his previous claim, rejected above, that the trial court did not adequately investigate whether the other jurors might have been pressuring L.R. to renounce her objections to imposing the death penalty. Defendant points to the rule promulgated in several lower federal cases that precludes the dismissal of a juror for being unwilling to deliberate whenever there is a reasonable possibility that the impetus for the dismissal stems from the juror's views on the merits of the case. ( People v. Cleveland, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 483-484, citing U.S. v. Symington (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1080, U.S. v. Thomas (2d Cir. 1997) 116 F.3d 606, and U.S. v. Brown (D.C. Cir. 1987) 823 F.2d 591 [262 U.S. App.D.C. 183].) As defendant acknowledges, however, we have expressly rejected this rule. ( Cleveland, at pp. 483-484.) Furthermore, the issue posed in the instant case was not whether L.R. was unwilling to deliberate, but rather, based on her extremely distressed state, whether she was unable to deliberate. We have recognized that both trial-related and non-trial-related stress can provide good cause for discharging a juror. (See People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 690-691, 696 [131 Cal.Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742] [inability to cope with the experience of being a juror]; People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1099-1100 [31 Cal.Rptr.2d 321, 875 P.2d 36] [anxiety about new job].) We therefore conclude the trial court had good cause to dismiss L.R.
After L.R. was excused, the trial court informed the remaining jurors that one person had been excused and admonished them not to speculate as to the reasons. The trial court instructed with CALJIC No. 17.51.1, which directs the jury to begin deliberations anew with regard to penalty with the newly appointed alternate juror. Defendant contends the trial court also should have given a lingering doubt instruction because it had learned (from the examination of Jurors L.R. and D.P.) that the legitimacy of lingering doubt was an issue in the deliberations. Furthermore, defendant contends a lingering doubt instruction was necessary because the dismissal of L.R. might have sent the message that a consideration of lingering doubt was illegitimate. (19) As defendant acknowledges, the trial court had no sua sponte duty to instruct on lingering doubt. ( People v. Johnson (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1183, 1252 [14 Cal.Rptr.2d 702, 842 P.2d 1].) Defendant's claim is forfeited because neither defendant (when he was representing himself at the penalty phase) nor his counsel (when they were reappointed) asked the trial court to instruct on lingering doubt. Furthermore, defendant merely speculates that, because of L.R.'s dismissal, the jury would have rejected any consideration of lingering doubt absent specific instruction by the court. We note the jury was instructed not to speculate about L.R.'s dismissal, and we presume a jury follows its instructions. ( People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 138-139 [2 Cal.Rptr.3d 186, 72 P.3d 1166]; Francis v. Franklin (1985) 471 U.S. 307, 324, fn. 9 [85 L.Ed.2d 344, 105 S.Ct. 1965].) Moreover, D.P., who had also expressed lingering doubt, was not excused, but was returned to the jury to deliberate. This circumstance militated against any inference that L.R. was dismissed for expressing lingering doubt. Finally, although the jury was not specifically instructed on lingering doubt, the concept of lingering doubt was sufficiently encompassed in section 190.3, factors (a) and (k), with which the jury was instructed. ( People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1068 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388].)