Opinion ID: 2518032
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Court of Appeal Ruling and Petition for Review

Text: The People appealed and the Court of Appeal reversed the order granting defendant a new penalty trial and reinstated the jury verdict fixing the penalty at death. [28] The court first determined that the jury room demonstration was not misconduct because there was nothing improper about the demonstration, nor did it involve any improper outside evidence. The court noted that all the factual assumptions explored by the demonstration were well within the evidence, and observed that even if the protractor was used to demonstrate angles, that effort was no different from using a ruler to mark linear measurements. As to Juror G.B.'s use of his home computer, the Court of Appeal stated the People concede [it] was technically misconduct, but not prejudicial. [29] The court accepted the People's concession without discussion and agreed that no prejudice resulted. The court stated: First, the juror never mentioned his use of his home computer to other jurors. Thus, its use had no effect on other jurors and did not in any way enhance the opinion of the offending juror. Second, there was no evidence the offending juror obtained information from the computer or did computations he otherwise could not have done. While he used the computer to draw the heights and distances to scale, the drawing was nothing more than he could have done on paper or on the blackboard. Third, the offending juror used the computer only to help himself visualize the relative positions of Rose and Collins. Some jurors were unsure about the prosecutor's argument that Collins essentially executed Rose while Rose was on his knees or running away. The offending juror already agreed with the argument, and merely used the computer to help him visualize his thoughts to more effectively persuade his fellow jurors. Finally, the evidence against Collins was strong. Thus, the technical misconduct was not prejudicial, and the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new penalty trial on this record. Defendant sought review in this court on the issue of juror misconduct. We denied review without prejudice to subsequent consideration after judgment. Defendant now asserts that both Juror G.B.'s computer use and the demonstration in the deliberation room were misconduct, violating his rights to trial by jury, to confront witnesses, and to a reliable penalty determination. [30] Respondent states that G.B.'s home computer use was arguably improper as a violation of the trial court's order not to conduct an independent investigation, but maintains that the juror's computer use was based on the evidence and merely allowed him to visualize his beliefs. Respondent contends that the jurors' demonstration in the deliberation room was not misconduct.