People v. Engelman

Summary

The Supreme Court of California held that CALJIC No. 17.41.1 did not violate the defendant’s constitutional rights to a jury trial, an independent and impartial verdict, or unanimity. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the instruction should not be given in future criminal trials because it could intrude upon jury deliberations, chill open discussion, and encourage unnecessary reporting of perceived misconduct.

Holdings

1. Giving CALJIC No. 17.41.1 did not violate defendant's federal or state constitutional right to trial by jury, his California constitutional right to a unanimous verdict, or his right to the independent and impartial judgment of each juror.
2. Jurors have a duty to follow the court's instructions and lack a right to refuse to deliberate, disregard the law, or decide a noncapital case on the basis of punishment; such conduct may constitute misconduct and may support discharge after appropriate inquiry.
3. Trial courts should not give CALJIC No. 17.41.1 in future California criminal trials.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CALJIC No. 17.41.1 violated the federal or state constitutional right to trial by jury.
2. Whether CALJIC No. 17.41.1 violated the California constitutional right to a unanimous verdict and to the independent and impartial judgment of each juror.
3. Whether giving CALJIC No. 17.41.1 constituted a structural defect requiring reversal per se.
4. Whether, notwithstanding the absence of constitutional error, the California Supreme Court should prohibit trial courts from giving CALJIC No. 17.41.1 in future criminal trials.

Disposition

affirmed