People v. Hutchinson

9 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

    Appellant's Opening Brief

    Filed January 22, 2007

    Moreover, the evidentiary bar did not advancethe state’s interest in preservingthe integrity of the jury system;the Legislature has decided that admitting into evidence jurors’ statements about overt acts protects the jury -171- system.(People v. Hutchinson, supra, 71 Cal.2d at pp. 349-350.) Even if Evidence Code section 1150 renders the jurors’ statements inadmissible, the state’s interest in enforcing the evidentiary bar failed to outweigh appellant’s interest in presenting evidencethat the jury failed to find anessential element ofthe lone death-eligibility factor that the prosecution alleged.

  2. KABRAN v. SHARP MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

    Appellant’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed August 28, 2015

    Underthe law asit existedat the time of the ruling on the motion for newtrial, it was at least questionable if the trial court could considerthe 10 declarations of a numberofjurors on the issue of bias of a fellow juror. However, while the appeal of the trial/denial of the motion for new trial was pending, the Supreme Court published its opinion in the matter of People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d. 342. The SecondDistrict Court of Appeal found that the Hutchinson holding made clear that the juror declarations were in fact admissible on demonstrating bias.

  3. PEOPLE v. CONTRERAS

    Appellant, Leonel Contreras, Petition for Review

    Filed February 24, 2015

    No evidence maybe presented concerning the subjective reasoning processesof a juror that can neither be corroborated nor disproved.(People v. Danks, supra, at p. 302; In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273, 294, 296.) The “overt acts” that may be considered under Evidence Code section 1150 are “such statements, conduct, conditions, or events as are ‘opento sight, hearing, and the other senses and thus subject to corroboration’....” (In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 398, quoting People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342, 349-350.) Thereis no question that jurors’ refusal to deliberate is misconduct.(People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1410-1411.)

  4. BELL (STEVEN M.) ON H.C.

    Non-Title Respondent, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Written Return

    Filed May 14, 2014

    This section limits jurors’ statements regarding their deliberations to “objective facts.” (People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342, 351.) While jurors can testify to statements made during or outside deliberations, they cannottestify as to how those statements effected the reasoning process of any individual juror.

  5. PEOPLE v. PEOPLES (LOUIS JAMES)

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed September 17, 2013

    (See 11 CT 2913 [defense counsel pointed to appellant crying during display of autopsy photographsand victim- 64 Apparently respondent agrees with appellant that the trial court erroneously relied upon Evidence Codesection 1150 as a barto the “thought processes” ofjurors since she does not respondto the argument. (See, AOB 519, fn. 228; People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342, 351 [‘objective facts’ observed by jurors are not made inadmissible by section 1150].) 184 impact testimony].

  6. PEOPLE v. GONZALES (IVAN)

    Appellant's Reply Brief

    Filed November 19, 2009

    Respondentfails to adequately address the contention that section 1150 was never meantto applyto the situation in this case where the verdict is fundamentally unsound, a. The Policies Undergirding Section 1150 Were Not Advanced by Excluding the Evidence Thethree rationales this Court has listed for section 1150 are to prevent fraud, juror harassment, and verdict instability. (Kollert v. Cundiff (1958) 50 Cal.2d 768, 773, overruled on other grounds by People v. 83 Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342.) Respondent does not argue that there is a nexus between excluding the statements in this case and preventing fraud, but claims that doing so would prevent the harassmentofjurors and instability of otherwise robust verdicts.

  7. BOYETTE (MAURICE) ON H.C.

    Respondent’s Informal Response

    Filed March 28, 2002

    20 Cal.3d 685, 695.) (See Jn re Hamilton, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 294 [ “with narrow exceptions, evidencethat the internal thought processes ofone or more jurors were biased is not admissible to impeach a verdict”]; In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391, 397-398 [jurors may testify to overt acts but not subjective reasoning processes]; People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342, 349-51 [California law precludes admitting evidence intended to disclose a juror’s mental processes in reaching a verdict]. Because petitioner has arguably come forward with “evidence demonstrating a strong possibility that prejudicial misconduct has occurred,” this Court should issue an order to show causereturnable to the trial court or appoint a referee, directing that the court or referee take evidence and make finding of facts relating to petitioner’s claims ofjuror misconduct.

  8. BELL (STEVEN M.) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Response Brief re Referee’s Report

    Filed May 27, 2016

    Section 1150 “distinguishes ‘between proof of overt acts, objectively ascertainable, and proof of the subjective reasoning processes of the individual juror, which can be neither corroborated nor disproved. ...’” People v. Steele, 27 Cal. 4th 1230, 1261 (2002) (quoting People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 349 (1969)). P.R.’s testimony that she and M.H. “were both struggling” does not “relate solely to the mental processes and subjective reasoning of the declarantjuror.”

  9. BELL (STEVEN M.) ON H.C.

    Petitioner’s Traverse

    Filed September 25, 2014

    Cal. Evid. Code § 1150 (West 2009). “This statute distinguishes ‘between proof of overt acts, objectively ascertainable, and proof of the subjective reasoning processes of the individual juror, which can be neither corroborated nor disproved....’” People yv. Steele, 27 Cal. 4th 1230, 1261 (2002) (quoting People v. Hutchinson, 71 Cal. 2d 342, 349 (1969)). “‘The only improperinfluences that may be proved under [Evidence Code] section 1150 to impeach a verdict, therefore, are those open to sight, hearing, and the other senses and thus subject to corroboration.’