People v. Leary

California Supreme Court Jan 5, 1895 No. No. 21123Published

Before: Beatty, Fleet

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a new trial is not required due to juror misconduct involving the reading of newspaper articles or the consumption of alcohol, provided the evidence shows no prejudice to the defendant. Furthermore, the court ruled that oral instructions given in the absence of a reporter do not constitute reversible error if they do not qualify or contradict the written charge and the defendant is not prejudiced.

Issues

Whether the reading of newspaper articles by jurors during trial constitutes grounds for a new trial.
Whether the consumption of alcohol by jurors during trial constitutes grounds for a new trial.
Whether the court's oral instructions to the jury in the absence of a reporter constitute reversible error.
Whether the jury's discretion to impose the death penalty for first-degree murder is subject to judicial review.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whatever may be the rule elsewhere it is now well settled in this state that the mere fact that a member or members of the jury have been guilty of using strong drink during the trial is not of itself sufficient ground for a new trial”

“If the matter, in other words, be such as would from its character, or the manner or connection in which it is stated, be calculated to prejudice or injuriously affect the minds of the jury, a presumption of improper influence arises”

“Conceding that this amounted to an oral instruction, we cannot perceive wherein the defendant could be in any wise injured by what took place.”

Synopsis

Criminal Law—Misconduct of Jury—Reading Newspaper Reports.— Although the reading of newspapers by jurors while engaged in the trial of a cause is an act of inattention to duty which ought to be properly corrected, and if the newspaper contains any matter such as would, from its character or the manner or connection in which it is stated, be calculated to prejudice or injuriously affect the minds of a jury, a presumption of improper influence arises, requiring a new trial for misconduct of the jury, and in such case the .jury would not be permitted to testify that they were not influenced by any thing read in the paper; yet this rule has no application where the newspaper merely states the evidence correctly as presented in the record, and contains nothing calculated to mislead or improperly affect the minds of the jury.

Id.—Use of Intoxicating Liquor.—The mere use of a small amount of intoxicating liquor in the jury-room, drank in little swallows just before going to meals, without any pretense that any member of the jury became in the least intoxicated or affected by the liquor so as to impair his faculties, or in the least interfere with the proper discharge of his duties, and the evidence shows the contrary, there is no such misconduct on the part of the jury in the use of intoxicating drink as to require the granting of a new trial.

Id.—Smuggling Liquor into Jury-room.—The smuggling of liquor into the jury-room without the knowledge of the court is a reprehensible dereliction of duty on the part of a juror, if done willfully or wantonly, and, upon coming to the knowledge of the trial court, should be severely punished, and cause the verdict to be jealously scrutinized; but does not necessarily vitiate the verdict where the evidence is such as to rebut the presumption of injury flowing therefrom to the defendant.

Id.—Murder—Death Penalty—Discretion oe Jury—Power oe Court. The legislature having confided to the discretion of the jury the fixing of the penalty of death or confinement in the state prison for life, upon a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, the discretion of the jury in that matter is absolute, with no power reserved to the court to review their action.

Id.—Instructions to Jury—Oral Conversation with Court.—Where, after having received full written instructions, the jury returned into court, and, in the absence of the official reporter, orally asked the court whether, if the defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, the jury could fix the punishment of imprisonment for life, to which the court orally answered that they could, if that was their verdict, and, upon one of the jurymen orally asking whether the jury could bring in any one of the six verdicts given to the jury which they might agree upon, the court orally answered, yes—such oral conversation and instruction to the jury causes no prejudicial injury to the defendant, and is not ground for a new trial.

Opinion — Fleet

Van Fleet, J. Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to be hanged.

He appeals from the judgment and an order overruling his motion for a new trial.

Several grounds are urged for a reversal, which we shall notice in the order in which they are presented and discussed by appellant, though not in the logical sequence in which they arise on the record.

1. It is claimed that the jury were guilty of such misconduct as to entitle defendant to a new trial.

The first assignment under this head is that the jury read published accounts of the trial in a newspaper, to the prejudice of defendant’s rights. It appeared on behalf of defendant on the motion that the Salinas Daily Journal, published at Salinas City, where the trial was had, printed from day to day a synopsis or résumé of the evidence in the case, and that on various occasions during the progress of the trial, but prior to their retiring for deliberation, copies of the paper fell into the hands [490]of the jury, and were read by some of them, including the matter therein relating to the trial; and that on one occasion one of the jurors made a suggestion that “they got that mighty straight,” or some such remark—referring to an account of the trial in the paper.

In rebuttal of this showing the prosecution were permitted to put in the testimony of the members of the jury, to the effect that they were not influenced in any manner whatever, in considering the case or rendering their verdict, by any thing they read in the paper in question. This evidence was inadmissible for such purpose (People v. Stokes, 103 Cal. 193; 42 Am. St. Rep. 102); but in the view we take of the question this was immaterial.

It is not claimed by defendant that the matter published contained any thing of an essentially prejudicial character, or that the evidence or proceedings were in any manner garbled, unfair, or even incorrectly reported, or in any instance intended or necessarily calculated to improperly influence or prejudice the minds of the jury. To the contrary, counsel for defendant in his brief refers to the statements in the paper as “ prepared by a person apparently fair and impartial,” and frankly admits that he does not base his claim for a reversal upon the ground that the jury had imperfect or inaccurate reports of the trial; but his contention would seem to be substantially that the mere fact that the jury had been permitted to read matter in a newspaper referring to the trial, wrhich might possibly in some manner injuriously affect their minds, immediately raises a presumption of improper influence, which affords grounds for a new trial. This, we think, is carrying the doctrine beyond a point where it can be sustained on reason, or authority. Certainly counsel has referred us to no case going to such length. The rule upon the subject is correctly stated, we think, in People v. McCoy, 71 Cal. 397, one of the cases cited by defendant, where it is said: “The reading of newspapers by jurors while engaged in the trial of a cause is an act of inattention to duty which

People v. Leary

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Fleet

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Beatty

AI Brief