People v. Castro

1 Citing brief

  1. PEOPLE v. LAVENDER

    Respondent’s Petition for Review

    Filed April 15, 2013

    The Question ofDisposition In our original decision, wereversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial based on our conclusion that, on the showings made by the defense and prosecution during the original motion for newtrial, there was admissible evidence upon which to evaluate whether misconduct had occurred (see part ILAL4, ante), the trial court correctly found (and the People on appeal conceded) misconduct had occurred (see part Il.A.5, ante), and our independent reviewoftheentire record convincedus the . presumption ofprejudice from the misconduct had not been rebutted (see part IT.A.6, ante), Our original disposition followed well-established precedent. (See, e.g., Cissna, supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 1105; People v. Castro (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 849 {juror misconduct]; People v. Brown (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 476 [juror misconduct]; Jn re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391 [juror misconduct]; City ofLos Angeles v. Decker 38 (1977) 18 Cal.3d 860; Enyartv. City ofLos Angeles (1999) 76 Cal.App.ath 499 [juror Misconduct); Smoketree-Lake Murray Ltd. v. Mills Concrete Construction Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1724 [juror misconduct]; Clemens y. Regents ofUniversity ofCalifornia (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 356 [juror misconduct].)