How have courts dealt with the situation where the verdict form signed by the jury is different in some respect from the verdict as declared and acknowledged in open court?

Other cases have dealt with the situation where the verdict form signed by the jury is different in some respect from the verdict as declared and acknowledged by the jury in open court. In People v. Lankford[155 Cal.App.3d 858] (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 203, 127 Cal.Rptr. 408, the verdict form was apparently signed and dated before one of the original jurors had been replaced by an alternate. When the verdict was orally acknowledged in court, however, it was done so by the 11 remaining original jurors plus the alternate. In response to the defendant's claim that the verdict was defective in that the alternate had not participated in it, the court held there was no error because the "true verdict" was the one acknowledged in open court with participation of the alternate: "The oral declaration of the jurors endorsing the result is the true return of the verdict." (At p. 211, 127 Cal.Rptr. 408.)

Similarly, in People v. Mestas (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 780, 786, 61 Cal.Rptr. 731, the court stated, "[w]hile it is established custom in modern practice for the court to submit verdict forms to the jury, the oral declaration by the jurors unanimously endorsing a given result is the true 'return of the verdict' prior to the recording thereof." (Italics added.) Thus, the court held that although the jury initially turned in signed and dated verdict forms purporting to find the defendant both guilty and not guilty, there was no error in immediately sending them back for further deliberations and subsequently allowing them to return and acknowledge only the guilty verdict, because the mere turning in of the verdict forms did not constitute a "true return" of any verdict.