People v. Currie

THE COURT.

The defendant- was charged in an indictment containing several counts with grand theft and violations of the Corporate Securities Act. Two of the counts charging grand theft were dismissed and he' was found guilty on the remaining charges. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction and the order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial on seven of the counts charging grand theft.

Four grounds for reversal are urged, namely, the misconduct of a witness for the prosecution and of the trial

[33]

court.; error in the admission of certain testimony, and that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

It appears from testimony taken upon the hearing of defendant’s motion for a new trial that during the pendency of the trial, on an occasion when the jurors were leaving the courtroom following an adjournment, two or more of them were accosted by a person who as a witness for the prosecution had testified that she purchased stock in the company respecting which it was alleged that defendant had made false representations. This person stated to said jurors that she hoped the jury “would be good to them” and would “give us a square deal”, and that she was a widow “and had lost her money”. None of the jurors replied. There was testimony that the trial judge was advised of the incident previous to the submission of the cause to the jury, and also that counsel for the defendant did not learn of it until after the .verdict had been returned and the jury discharged.

Defendant claims that the trial court erred in not admonishing the jury to disregard these remarks, and that this with the fact that the same were made entitled him to a new trial. It is not contended that any juror was guilty of misconduct; and it is clear from the testimony of those accosted that they were not influenced by the statements.

The facts are similar to those in

People

v.

Pyle,

44 Cal. App. 130 [185 Pac. 1019], wherein it was held that the refusal of a new trial was not erroneous. While the trial court might properly have admonished the jurors to disregard the statements we cannot say that the error, if any, was prejudicial or that the refusal of a new trial was in the-circumstances an abuse of discretion. To the same effect as the case mentioned are the following decisions: