Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 California opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Piercegreen2 sentences2017The People assert the jury was instructed to base its verdict only on the evidence received at trial, and that when the comment about punishment was *1268 made, the jury foreperson immediately reminded the jurors not to consider extraneous information. "[J]ury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice; and unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial." ( People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199 , 207, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 .) The problem with the People's evidence is that Juror-1 heard the statem 2017The People assert the jury was instructed to base its verdict only on the evidence received at trial, and that when the comment about punishment was *1268 made, the jury foreperson immediately reminded the jurors not to consider extraneous information. "[J]ury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice; and unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial." ( People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199 , 207, 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 .) The problem with the People's evidence is that Juror-1 heard the statem | 9 | 13 |
In Re Stankewitzgreen2 sentences2014A conviction must be reversed “‘whenever . . . the court finds a substantial likelihood that the vote of one or more jurors was influenced by exposure to prejudicial matter relating to the defendant or to the case itself that was not part of the trial record on 6 which the case was submitted to the jury.’” (People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 950 .) Juror misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice and, “‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’” (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 .) O 1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct | 7 | 8 |
People v. Mirandagreen2 sentences2011The Misconduct Was Prejudicial “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption . . . , the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ ” (Cumpian, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) The presumption of prejudice may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or “ ‘by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party.’ ” (People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 117 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 594 , 744 P.2d 1127 ].) “ ‘Whe 2011The Misconduct Was Prejudicial “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption . . . , the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ ” (Cumpian, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) The presumption of prejudice may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or “ ‘by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party.’ ” (People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 117 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 594 , 744 P.2d 1127 ].) “ ‘Whe | 5 | 6 |
People v. Honeycuttgreen2 sentences1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire 1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire | 5 | 5 |
Hasson v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire 1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire | 3 | 3 |
People v. Martinezgreen2 sentences1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire 1995It stated the test this way: “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption .... the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]; People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 P.2d 91 ]; People v. Honeycutt (1977) 20 Cal.3d 150, 156 [ 141 Cal.Rptr. 698 , 570 P.2d 1050 ].) The presumption of prejudice ‘may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire | 3 | 3 |
People v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2014A conviction must be reversed “‘whenever . . . the court finds a substantial likelihood that the vote of one or more jurors was influenced by exposure to prejudicial matter relating to the defendant or to the case itself that was not part of the trial record on 6 which the case was submitted to the jury.’” (People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907, 950 .) Juror misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice and, “‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’” (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 .) O 1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct | 2 | 4 |
In Re Carpentergreen2 sentences1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct 1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct | 2 | 2 |
People v. Danielsgreen2 sentences1992(People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 864 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ].) “It is settled that ‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’ ” (Ibid.) The likelihood of rebutting the presumption of prejudice is “far less” where, as here, “the offending juror remains on the jury and participates in the verdict than when the juror is promptly removed.” (People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 864 .) Whether the 1992(People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 864 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 122 , 802 P.2d 906 ]; People v. Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ].) “It is settled that ‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’ ” (Ibid.) The likelihood of rebutting the presumption of prejudice is “far less” where, as here, “the offending juror remains on the jury and participates in the verdict than when the juror is promptly removed.” (People v. Daniels, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 864 .) Whether the | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stokesgreen1 sentence1986(People v. Stokes (1894) 103 Cal. 193, 198 [ 37 P. 207 ], italics added.) This same theme follows through the years to the court’s recent pronouncement in In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]: “It is settled that ‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’ (Citation omitted.) The People’s only attempt to carry that heavy burden in this case is (declarations of two jurors which the Court found insufficient).” (Italics added.) 8 Although Juror Rankins’ behavior | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hogangreen2 sentences1985(Cf. People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 847 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 647 P.2d 93 ] [jury’s consideration of inadmissible evidence establishing the defendant’s reluctance to submit to a lie detector test in a case in which his truthfulness was the key issue].) Finally, “the presumption . . . is even stronger in the context of a capital case.” (Id. at p. 848.) It is settled that “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” (People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 207 , and cases cited.) The People’s only 1985(Cf. People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 847 [ 183 Cal.Rptr. 817 , 647 P.2d 93 ] [jury’s consideration of inadmissible evidence establishing the defendant’s reluctance to submit to a lie detector test in a case in which his truthfulness was the key issue].) Finally, “the presumption . . . is even stronger in the context of a capital case.” (Id. at p. 848.) It is settled that “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” (People v. Pierce, supra, 24 Cal.3d at p. 207 , and cases cited.) The People’s only | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Louisianagreen2 sentences1983(People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 *364 P.2d 91].) Six of the ten jurors who responded by affidavit to the prosecutor’s questionnaire after the verdict was returned had read the article. 3 “ ‘In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” [Citation.] This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies.’” (Turner v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 466, 472 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 424, 428 , 85 S.Ct. 546 ].) Evidence of other alleged crimes is inadmis 1983(People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 *364 P.2d 91].) Six of the ten jurors who responded by affidavit to the prosecutor’s questionnaire after the verdict was returned had read the article. 3 “ ‘In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” [Citation.] This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies.’” (Turner v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 466, 472 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 424, 428 , 85 S.Ct. 546 ].) Evidence of other alleged crimes is inadmis | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wong Lounggreen2 sentences1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. 1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Winchestergreen2 sentences1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. 1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1 |
Remmer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. 1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Guzmangreen2 sentences1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. 1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Conklinggreen1 sentence1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Hitchings
green
2 sentences1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct 1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Holloway
green
2 sentences1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct 1997In In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 665 , 889 P.2d 985 ], the majority recognized, under In re Hitchings (1993) 6 Cal.4th 97 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 74 , 860 P.2d 466 ] and People v. Holloway (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1098 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 530 , 790 P.2d 1327 ], that it is misconduct “for a juror to receive information outside of court about the pending case . . . .” (In re Carpenter, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 647.) The Carpenter majority also recognized, under decisions including Holloway and People v. Marshall (1990) 50 Cal.3d 907 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676 ], that juror misconduct | 2 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Hosner
green
1 sentence2015(Id. at p. 68.) 9 In Hosner, the Supreme Court answered “[t]he question not presented in Shuford [which] is now before us: what showing of particularized need, if any, must an indigent defendant make in order to become entitled to a free transcript of prior proceedings.” (Hosner, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 66 .) It held “an indigent defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to have a particularized need for a transcript of prior proceedings, just as he is presumed, if he needs a transcript at all, to need nothing less than a complete transcript.” (Ibid.) The court must grant the defendant’s motion | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Mendoza
red
1 sentence2014(People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 195 .) Whether prejudice occurred is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Cumpian
green
2 sentences2011The Misconduct Was Prejudicial “Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and ‘ “unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption . . . , the defendant is entitled to a new trial.” ’ ” (Cumpian, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) The presumption of prejudice may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or “ ‘by a reviewing court’s examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party.’ ” (People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 117 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 594 , 744 P.2d 1127 ].) “ ‘Whe 2011(Cumpian, supra, 1 Cal.App.4th at p. 312 .) We therefore examine whether the misconduct resulted in a “ ‘ “reasonable probability of actual harm” ’ ” to the complaining party. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
People v. Karis
green
2 sentences1999Again, the Karis court summarized well the analysis we must apply to resolve this issue: "The rules governing jury misconduct are clear. `Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and "unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption ..., the defendant is entitled to a new trial." [Citations.] The presumption of prejudice "may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court's examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party...." [Citation.] Whether a def 1999Again, the Karis court summarized well the analysis we must apply to resolve this issue: "The rules governing jury misconduct are clear. `Jury misconduct raises a presumption of prejudice, and "unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption ..., the defendant is entitled to a new trial." [Citations.] The presumption of prejudice "may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court's examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party...." [Citation.] Whether a def | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Lancaster v. Maxwell
green
1 sentence1986(People v. Stokes (1894) 103 Cal. 193, 198 [ 37 P. 207 ], italics added.) This same theme follows through the years to the court’s recent pronouncement in In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 402 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 708 P.2d 1260 ]: “It is settled that ‘unless the prosecution rebuts that presumption by proof that no prejudice actually resulted, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.’ (Citation omitted.) The People’s only attempt to carry that heavy burden in this case is (declarations of two jurors which the Court found insufficient).” (Italics added.) 8 Although Juror Rankins’ behavior | 1 | 1986–1986 |
System Terminal Corporation v. Cornelison
green
1 sentence1983(People v. Pierce (1979) 24 Cal.3d 199, 207 [ 155 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 595 *364 P.2d 91].) Six of the ten jurors who responded by affidavit to the prosecutor’s questionnaire after the verdict was returned had read the article. 3 “ ‘In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as “indifferent as he stands unsworne.” [Citation.] This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies.’” (Turner v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 466, 472 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 424, 428 , 85 S.Ct. 546 ].) Evidence of other alleged crimes is inadmis | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sanquírico v. Registrar of Property of Caguas
green
1 sentence1979(See also In re Winchester (1960) 53 Cal.2d 528, 534-535 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 296 , 348 P.2d 904 ]; People v. Wong Loung (1911) 159 Cal. 520, 528-529 [ 114 P. 829 ]; People v. Conkling (1896) 111 Cal. 616, 628 [ 44 P. 314 ]; People v. Guzman (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 549, 559 [ 136 Cal.Rptr. 163 ]; accord, Remmer v. United States (1954) 347 U.S. 227, 229 [ 98 L.Ed. 654, 655-656 , 74 S.Ct. 450 ].) The People failed to sustain that burden. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.