What is the test for a motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Avila, B229013 (Cal. App. 2012):
"When a defendant moves for a new trial based on jury misconduct, the trial court undertakes a three-part inquiry. 'First, the court must determine whether the evidence presented for its consideration is admissible. . . . [] Once the court finds the evidence is admissible, it must then consider whether the facts establish misconduct. . . . [] Finally, if misconduct is found to have occurred, the court must determine whether the misconduct was prejudicial.' [Citation.]" (People v. Sanchez (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 460, 475.) "'Misconduct by a juror . . . usually raises a rebuttable "presumption" of prejudice.
Page 13
[Citations.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Banks (2004) 32 Cal.4th 269, 302.) "'[T]his presumption of prejudice "'may be rebutted by an affirmative evidentiary showing that prejudice does not exist or by a reviewing court's examination of the entire record to determine whether there is a reasonable probability of actual harm to the complaining party [resulting from the misconduct]. . . .'" [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Carter (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1114, 1208.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
