Opinion ID: 2584774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Court's Statement to Prospective Juror

Text: During voir dire, a prospective juror told the trial court that in a different case in which the prospective juror had served as a juror, another juror had considered things other than the evidence and that no one informed the court of the juror's actions. This prompted the court in this case to tell the prospective jurors: If any juror for whatever reason cannot or will not follow the law, it is the obligation of that juror and each juror to let the Court know so that we can, if necessary, get somebody in there that can. [¶] It is not appropriate deciding the case based on things, evidence not received, things the person knows about the scene, for example, or anything of that nature. [¶] But the Court will not be able to do anything about it unless somebody tells the Court that. That language closely resembles the language of CALJIC former No. 17.41.1 that instructed the jury that if any juror refused to deliberate or expressed an intention to disregard the law or to decide that case on any improper basis, it was the duty of other jurors to so inform the court immediately. In People v. Engelman (2002) 28 Cal.4th 436, 449 [121 Cal.Rptr.2d 862, 49 P.3d 209], we held, in the exercise of our supervisory power ... that CALJIC No. 17.41.1 not be given in trials conducted (citations omitted) after our decision in that case. Defendant contends the trial court's statement violated his federal constitutional rights to a jury trial and due process. He argues that the court's statement invaded the requisite secrecy of jury deliberations undermining the jury's free exercise of the power of nullification. As defendant concedes, this court has in the past rejected the argument that the language of CALJIC former No. 17.41.1 violates federal or state constitutional rights. ( People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 393 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 93 P.3d 244]; People v. Engelman, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 444-445.) We see no reason to reconsider that view.