Erickson v. Superior Court, C024719

• Citation: 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 230,55 Cal.App.4th 755
• Decision Date: 09 June 1997
• Docket Number: No. C024719,C024719
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4339, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7257 Jeffrey Aaron ERICKSON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Placer County, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Page 230

64 Cal.Rptr.2d 230

55 Cal.App.4th 755, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4339,

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7257

Jeffrey Aaron ERICKSON, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of Placer County, Respondent The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

No. C024719.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

June 9, 1997.

Ronald J. Peters, River Gold, and David W. Dratman, Sacramento, for petitioner.

Lyle Rose, County Counsel, Valerie D. Flood and Gerald O. Carden, Deputy County Counsel, Auburn, for respondent.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of State of California, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, W. Scott Thorpe, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Carlos A. Martinez, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for real party in interest.

PUGLIA, Associate Justice.

Petitioner (defendant) seeks a writ of prohibition restraining respondent superior court from conducting any further proceedings involving selection of a jury in defendant's pending trial.

Defendant is charged with two counts of second degree murder (Pen.Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (Pen.Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)). Respondent court filed an order directing "that the jury in [this] case will be selected in accordance with Court Ops Memo # 75, and the names and personal identification information of the prospective jurors will remain confidential." Thereafter, defendant timely filed this petition for writ of prohibition. We stayed implementation of Court Ops Memo # 75 pending receipt of opposition and further order of this court. The People filed a response asserting the petition should be granted and respondent court filed opposition to the petition. We advised the parties that we are considering a peremptory writ in the first instance. We shall issue a peremptory writ of prohibition.

In promulgating Court Ops Memo # 75, respondent superior court purports to extend sealing of juror identifying information throughout all civil and criminal proceedings, in effect adopting a procedure ensuring anonymity of jurors absent granting of a petition for access to personal juror identifying information. ¹

Subdivision (a)(2) of Code of Civil Procedure section 237 was amended in 1995 to read: "Upon the recording of a jury's verdict in a criminal jury proceeding, the court's record of personal juror identifying information of trial jurors, as defined in Section 194, consisting of names, addresses, and telephone numbers, shall be sealed until further order of the court as provided by this section." Subdivision (f) of Code of Civil Procedure section 206 provides: "Pursuant to Section 237, a defendant or defendant's counsel may, following the recording of a jury's verdict in a criminal proceeding, petition the court for access to personal juror identifying information within the court's records necessary for the defendant to communicate with jurors for the purpose of developing a motion for new trial or any other lawful purpose. This information consists of jurors' names, addresses, and telephone numbers. The court shall consider all requests for personal juror identifying information pursuant to Section 237." Subdivisions (b), (c) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure section 237 set forth the procedure for seeking access to personal juror identifying information sealed after return of jury verdict. The statute does not authorize sealing of juror identifying information at any stage of a civil action or at any stage of a criminal action prior to return of jury verdict.

In amending Code of Civil Procedure section 237 to limit access to juror identifying information only after return of jury verdict in a criminal case, the Legislature addressed the subject of confidentiality of juror identifying information, determining that such information shall be sealed only upon return of jury verdict in a criminal action. ²

As a local court rule or practice, Court Ops Memo # 75 is invalid if inconsistent with statute. ³ (Kalivas v. Barry Controls Corp. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1158, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 200, citing Mentzer v. Hardoin 1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1372, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 214; Wells Fargo Bank v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 918, 923, 254 Cal.Rptr. 68; Iverson v. Superior Court (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 544, 548, 213 Cal.Rptr. 399; St. Vincent Medical Center v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1030, 1034, 206 Cal.Rptr. 840; Gov.Code, § 68070.) By mandating the sealing of juror identifying information in civil actions and in criminal proceedings prior to return of jury verdict, Court Ops Memo # 75 directly conflicts with the statute mandating the sealing of juror identifying information only in criminal actions after return of jury verdict. Hence, Court Ops Memo # 75 is invalid and unenforceable. This conclusion obviates the need to consider other issues tendered by defendant.

Having complied with the procedural requirements delineated in Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 203 Cal.Rptr. 626, 681 P.2d 893, we are authorized to issue a preemptory writ in the first instance. "Although '[t]he writ to be issued does not exactly conform to the prayer of the petition; ... this court is not limited by the prayer, and may grant the relief it deems appropriate.' [Citations.]" (George M. v. Superior Court (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 755, 760, 247 Cal.Rptr. 330.)

Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue restraining respondent superior court from implementing or otherwise giving effect to Court Ops Memo # 75. Upon finality of this decision, the previously issued stay is vacated.

SIMS and SCOTLAND, JJ., concur.

1 In pertinent part, Court Ops Memo # 75 reads:

"Code of Civil Procedure section 206.237 was amended in 1995 (SB 508) requiring the court to seal all record of personal juror identifying information at the conclusion of a criminal jury proceeding. It is the policy and procedure of the Placer County Superior and Municipal Courts to follow the same procedure for both criminal and civil jury trials.

Procedure

1. Jury Services prepares two random lists for each department. One random for the judge and one for the clerk.

2. Roll call is taken by the clerk, no attorneys or parties present and off the record. The prospective jurors oath is administered to the prospective jury panel prior to hardship screening and completion of juror questionnaire.

3. Clerk/judge--initial hardships on the record (in some departments), outside of the presence of attorneys and parties.

4. Remaining jurors are given a juror number badge to wear, see sample attached. ... Clerk records that number on the random list next to the appropriate name. Jurors will be known by this number for the remainder of the trial.

5. Questionnaires are completed, juror uses the assigned number instead of name at the top of the questionnaire. Using the...