Church v. Capital Freight Lines

California Court of Appeal May 2, 1956 No. Civ. 8704Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse their discretion in determining that a juror was mentally competent at the time of trial based on conflicting expert testimony and evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party challenging a juror's competency to establish mental incapacity by a preponderance of the evidence.

Issues

Whether a juror was mentally incompetent at the time of trial, thereby denying the plaintiffs their right to a jury of 12 competent persons.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in resolving conflicting evidence regarding a juror's mental state.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the burden was cast upon plaintiffs to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Sindel was in fact mentally incompetent at the time of the trial.”

“Upon the conflicting evidence so presented the trial court concluded that Sindel was qualified to serve as a juror.”

“that is not to say that upon the conflicting evidence presented, the trial judge abused his discretion in following the conclusion of defendants’ doctor rather than the evidence produced by plaintiffs.”

PEEK, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of defendants in an action for personal injuries. Plaintiffs’ sole contention is that they were denied their right to a trial before a jury of 12 competent persons in that Norman Sindel, the foreman of the jury, was mentally incompetent at the time of trial.

The record shows that the verdict and judgment were entered on March 5; that on March 16, 11 days thereafter, Sindel’s wife filed her petition to have him declared to be a mentally ill person; and that on March 18 he was declared so to be and was committed to Agnews State Hospital. On March 17, plaintiffs filed their notice of motion for a new trial, stating the same would be made on affidavits and all of the records and files in said action. On April 30 they filed their notice of motion for mistrial. Although that motion was noticed for May 10, the record shows that the date of hearing thereon was May 6, and the court, in its order denying the same, states: “Motion for mistrial was made, together with motion for new trial. The grounds were that one of the jurors was mentally incompetent and hence there was a jury of eleven persons without the consent of the parties.” The order was filed on May 24. Since no ruling was made on plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, it will

[248]

be deemed to have been denied by operation of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 660.)

Although we have been referred to no cases in this state directly in point, surely there can be no question but that the right to a trial before mentally competent jurors is as fundamental as the right to trial before unbiased and unprejudiced jurors which our courts have held to be an “ ‘inseparable and inalienable part of the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Constitution. ’ ’ ’

(People

Galloway,

202 Cal. 81, 92 [259 P. 332].) In amplification of this constitutional right, the Legislature by statute has determined who are competent (Code Civ. Proc., § 198) and who are not competent (Code Civ. Proc., § 199) to act as jurors. By such statutory provisions a person not in “possession of his natural faculties’’ may be disqualified to serve as a juror. But that fact would not necessarily be disclosed under ordinary questioning on

Church v. Capital Freight Lines

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief