appellate court will find error in California

2026J. cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his or her duty, . . . the court may order the juror to be discharged . . . .” “ ‘Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Jablonski, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 807 .) We conclud

2024(Jones, at p. 702; accord, Shanks v. Department of Transportation (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 543, 553 .) “ ‘Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s 10 functions must be shown by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court . . . will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 807 ; see People v. Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1211 [“ ‘ “[W]he

2025(People v. Lopez (2018) 5 Cal.5th 339, 365 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a ‘demonstrable reality.’ The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged . . . if supported by substantial evidence.” ’ ” (People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 943 .) 5.2.3.

2022Thus, defendant has not demonstrated, on this record, that Juror No. 1 was not “in possession of his natural faculties and of ordinary intelligence” during the voir dire or the trial proceedings.6 (See also People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 943 [in context of section 1089, discharge of juror during trial, “‘“[b]efore an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a ‘demonstrable reality.’ The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretio

2021(Sattiewhite, at p. 486.) “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a ‘demonstrable reality.’ The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.” (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 659 .

2015(Boyette, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 889 .) The presumption is rebutted “ ‘and the verdict will not be disturbed, if the entire record in the particular case, including the nature of the misconduct or other event, and the surrounding circumstances, indicates there is no reasonable probability of prejudice, i.e., no substantial likelihood that one or more jurors were actually biased against the defendant.’ [Citation.] In other words, the test asks not whether the juror would have been stricken by one of the parties, but whether the juror’s concealment (or 20 nondisclosure) evidences bias.” (Id. at

2013So I‟ll decline to remove her and you have a record.” Section 1089 provides: “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, … the court may order the juror to be discharged .…” “„Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror‟s inability to perform a juror‟s functions must be shown 19. by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial cou

1997(People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 975, 989 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607 , 891 P.2d 153 ].) Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s ruling here.

2013Applicable Legal Principles ―Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror‘s inability to perform a juror‘s functions must be shown by the record to be a ‗demonstrable reality.‘ The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court‘s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.]‖ (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 659 ; see also People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 232 .) 3.

2002Section 1089 authorizes a trial court to discharge a juror if, among other reasons, “good cause” is shown that the juror is “unable to perform [her] *141 duty.” 13 When a trial court is put on notice that good cause to discharge a juror may exist, “it is the court’s duty to make whatever inquiry is reasonably necessary to determine if the juror should be discharged and failure to make this inquiry must be regarded as error.” (People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 520 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 112 , 714 P.2d 1251 ], overruled on another point in People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743 [ 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 7

2020(San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at p. 644 .) “In evaluating claims of intentional concealment by jurors during 13 voir dire, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ]; see People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 , 956 P.2d 1137 ].)” (People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 371-372 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s i

2020(San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at p. 644 .) “In evaluating claims of intentional concealment by jurors during 13 voir dire, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ]; see People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 , 956 P.2d 1137 ].)” (People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 371-372 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s i

2024(Jones, at p. 702; accord, Shanks v. Department of Transportation (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 543, 553 .) “ ‘Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s 10 functions must be shown by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court . . . will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 807 ; see People v. Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1211 [“ ‘ “[W]he

2024(Jones, at p. 702; accord, Shanks v. Department of Transportation (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 543, 553 .) “ ‘Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s 10 functions must be shown by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court . . . will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (People v. Jablonski (2006) 37 Cal.4th 774, 807 ; see People v. Rangel, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 1211 [“ ‘ “[W]he

2021See also Sattiewhite, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 486 ; Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 621 ; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 489 .) We defer to the trial court’s credibility assessments, based, as they are, on firsthand observations unavailable to us on appeal.

2021See also Sattiewhite, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 486 ; Bennett, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 621 ; People v. Lucas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 415, 489 .) We defer to the trial court’s credibility assessments, based, as they are, on firsthand observations unavailable to us on appeal.

2020(San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at p. 644 .) “In evaluating claims of intentional concealment by jurors during 13 voir dire, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ]; see People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 , 956 P.2d 1137 ].)” (People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 371-372 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s i

2020(San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at p. 644 .) “In evaluating claims of intentional concealment by jurors during 13 voir dire, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ]; see People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 , 956 P.2d 1137 ].)” (People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 371-372 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s i

2020(San Nicolas, supra, 34 Cal. 4th at p. 644 .) “In evaluating claims of intentional concealment by jurors during 13 voir dire, ‘[w]e accept the trial court’s credibility determinations and findings on questions of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence.’ (People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561, 582 [ 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d 454 , 941 P.2d 87 ]; see People v. Majors (1998) 18 Cal.4th 385, 417 [ 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 684 , 956 P.2d 1137 ].)” (People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, 371-372 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s i

2016Recent California Supreme Court decisions stress that juror disqualifying bias must appear on the record as a “demonstrable reality.” (Barnwell, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 1052 .) “ ‘ “Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a ‘demonstrable reality.’ The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evidence.” ’ ” (Martinez, s

2013(People v. Earp, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 892 ; People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 843 .) Its discretion in this regard is broad (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 462, fn. 19 ); however, “‘[b]efore an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror’s inability to perform a juror’s functions must be shown by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial court’s exercise of discretion on whether a seated juror should be discharged for good cause under section 1089 if supported by substantial evid

2013(People v. Farnam, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 141 ; accord, People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 943 .) “An accused has a constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury. [Citations.] An impartial jury is one in which no member has been improperly influenced [citations] and every member is ‘“capable and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it”’ [citations].” (In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273, 293-294 ; Smith v. Phillips (1982) 455 U.S. 209, 217 ; see also Ristaino v. Ross (1976) 424 U.S. 589, 595, fn. 6 .) “A defendant is ‘entitled to be tried by 12, not 11, impa

2013So I‟ll decline to remove her and you have a record.” Section 1089 provides: “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, … the court may order the juror to be discharged .…” “„Before an appellate court will find error in failing to excuse a seated juror, the juror‟s inability to perform a juror‟s functions must be shown 19. by the record to be a “demonstrable reality.” The court will not presume bias, and will uphold the trial cou