California Court of Appeal

In a prosecution of defendant for sex crimes, denial of a motion for a new trial is reversed where: 1) a juror's misconduct was prejudicial as the juror's conversations with a nonjuror were pervasive, focused on deliberative matters concerning the merits of the case, and included discussions of the defendant's decision not to testify; and 2) the conversations interfered with the deliberative process and the right to have the case decided by twelve impartial jurors. In regards to other contentions to be addressed on appeal, if the prosecution introduces excerpts of the diary into evidence, the defense is entitled to examine the entirety of a diary subject to appropriate protective orders, and defendant's contention that Penal Code section 288.5 violates his right to a unanimous jury verdict is rejected.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/26/2010
• Published 02/26/2010

Judges

• HALLER, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Charles M. Sevilla, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and Gary W. Brozio, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.