Court Opinion

ID: 9559148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:23:24.847605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:51.066559
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.
I concur in the judgment upon both of the two principal grounds discussed in the opinion: (1) That is was error to, “in effect,” instruct the jury through the bailiff that it was “none of their business” as to whether the burden of proving the whereabouts of the defendant at the time of the crime rested upon the defendant or the People; and (2) that it was error to exclude the proffered hearsay testimony of the witness Hayden concerning admissions of the decedent against her interest in property and declarations of the decedent as to her intent to leave the premises.
In making such rulings, however, it seems but fair to the trial judge to note that as to error number 1, while the procedure was technically irregular and such irregularity pro*424vided the opportunity for the prejudice in the incident, the real mischief arose through the construction seemingly placed upon the message by the jurors and acquiesced in by the bailiff rather than from the inherent meaning of the language which, it is asserted, was actually authorized. The assertedly authorized message—that the jurors “were not concerned with anything that was not in the evidence or the law as given to them by the court”—was not technically inaccurate. A reference to the instructions shows that the jurors had been properly instructed as to the burden of proof. The incident emphasizes the wisdom of the rule which forbids informal communication with jurors after a case has been submitted to them. (Cf. McDowd v. Pig’n Whistle Corp. (1945), 26 Cal.2d 696 [160 P.2d 797], wherein, by a divided court, it was held that jurors could be permitted to separate after submission of the cause, thus creating opportunity for entirely unsupervised informal communication with each of them.) And as to error number 2, insofar as concerns excluding the hearsay statement of the decedent declaring her intent to vacate the premises, we today rely strongly upon People v. Alcalde (April 26, 1944), 24 Cal.2d 177, 185 et seq. [148 P.2d 627], which case has been decided since the trial in the case at bar.