People v. Hutchinson
455 P.2d 132, 78 Cal. Rptr. 196, 71 Cal. 2d 342 (1969)
Rule of Law:
Jurors are competent witnesses to prove objective facts of misconduct or improper influence, open to sight, hearing, and other senses, to impeach a verdict under California Evidence Code § 1150, but are not permitted to testify about the subjective reasoning processes or mental influence upon their verdict.
Facts:
- Robert Bee Hutchinson, an 18-year-old, lived with his mother and stepfather and shared a bedroom with his two brothers and a stepbrother.
- For about a week before July 25, 1966, only Robert and one brother were occupying the shared bedroom, as the other two boys were away on vacation.
- On July 25, 1966, while cleaning the shared bedroom and closet, Robert’s mother, Mrs. Long, discovered two boxes containing what was later identified as marijuana: one in the closet covered by clothing, and another under Robert’s bed.
- Mrs. Long confronted Robert upon his return home, accusing him of knowing to whom the boxes and their contents belonged, stating she felt he was responsible as the oldest child when his parents were not home.
- Mrs. Long screamed at Robert and told him if he did not tell her where the marijuana came from, she would call the police.
- Robert replied that “it wasn’t his and he didn’t know anything about it,” became emotional, and then left the house through his bedroom window.
- About 25 minutes later, Mrs. Long called the police, who arrived within half an hour and left with the boxes.
- Approximately half an hour after the police left, Robert called his home from a telephone five blocks away, and his stepfather subsequently picked him up.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Bee Hutchinson was accused by information of possession of marijuana for sale.
- A jury in the trial court found Robert Bee Hutchinson guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana.
- Robert Bee Hutchinson filed a motion for a new trial, submitting an affidavit from a juror alleging misconduct on the part of the bailiff.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, refusing to consider the juror's affidavit on the ground that jurors cannot impeach their own verdicts.
- The trial court granted Robert Bee Hutchinson probation.
- Robert Bee Hutchinson appealed the order granting probation and the order denying a new trial to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California Evidence Code § 1150 permit jurors to submit affidavits to prove overt acts of misconduct by a bailiff or other third parties that were likely to have improperly influenced the verdict, or does the common law rule against juror impeachment of verdicts still preclude such evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Traynor, C.J.
Yes, California Evidence Code § 1150 permits jurors to submit affidavits proving overt acts of misconduct by a bailiff or other third parties that were likely to have improperly influenced the verdict, as the code explicitly distinguishes between objectively ascertainable overt acts and subjective mental processes. The court re-examines and substantially modifies the common law rule against juror impeachment of verdicts, which had been criticized by commentators and eroded by judicial exceptions. The common law rule, originating from Lord Mansfield's Vaise v. Delaval, was based on a policy against jurors alleging their own wrongdoing and later mistakenly interpreted as statutory by California courts. This court clarifies that the Legislature never intended to restrict the judiciary's power to expand the scope of juror impeachment. The court holds that Evidence Code § 1150, subdivision (a), provides the appropriate standard by allowing evidence of "statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly," while expressly prohibiting evidence concerning a juror's "mental processes." This distinction effectively addresses the policy concerns of verdict stability, fraud, and juror harassment, allowing for the exposure of verifiable misconduct without invading the privacy of jury deliberation's subjective elements. The bailiff's remarks and tone, as described in the juror's affidavit (e.g., threatening overnight lockup, implying external dangers, expressing anger, and rushing the jury), constitute overt "statements and conduct" likely to have improperly influenced the verdict under § 1150. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to consider this competent evidence, and defendant is entitled to a redetermination of his motion for a new trial. Prior cases, including Sopp v. Smith and Kollert v. Cundiff, are overruled to the extent they contradict this conclusion.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally reshaped the landscape of jury misconduct challenges in California by narrowing the long-standing common law rule against juror impeachment. By establishing a clear distinction between objective, verifiable misconduct (e.g., external influences, third-party interference) and subjective juror thought processes, the court struck a balance between maintaining verdict stability and ensuring the integrity of the jury system. This ruling allows for greater scrutiny of external influences on juries, providing a mechanism to address serious procedural irregularities that could compromise a fair trial, while still protecting the sanctity of a jury's internal deliberations from endless post-verdict questioning. It has had a significant impact on how courts evaluate claims of jury misconduct, mandating consideration of relevant juror affidavits concerning overt acts.
