People v. Williams
Decision Date | 07 May 2001 |
Docket Number | No. S066106.,S066106. |
Citation | 25 Cal.4th 441,106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295,21 P.3d 1209 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arasheik Wesley WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Barry P. Helft, San Francisco, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren and Bill Lockyer, Attorneys General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver and Karl S. Mayer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A juror in this criminal case expressly refused to follow the trial court's instructions regarding the crime of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, because the juror disagreed with the law criminalizing such behavior. The trial court dismissed the juror and replaced him with an alternate juror. On appeal following conviction, defendant claims the juror should not have been discharged, because the juror's refusal to follow the law was proper under the concept of "jury nullification." The Court of Appeal rejected that contention and affirmed the judgment of conviction. We agree with the Court of Appeal and affirm the judgment.
Defendant Arasheik Wesley Williams was charged in an 11-count information with committing the offenses of false imprisonment (Pen.Code, § 236),1 assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), forcible rape (§ 261, subd. (a)(2)), battery with serious bodily injury (§§ 242, 243, subd. (d)), and torture (§ 206) against his former girlfriend, Jennifer B., during three incidents occurring on December 31, 1994, January 1, 1995, and January 9, 1995. The information further alleged that defendant used a deadly or dangerous weapon in the commission of five of the counts (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)), used a deadly weapon in the commission of one of the charged rapes (§ 12022.3, subd. (a)), and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim in the commission of another of the counts (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)).
As to the December 31 incident, defendant was convicted of the misdemeanor offense of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor (§ 261.5, subd. (b)) as a necessarily included offense of rape. As to the January 1 incident, defendant was acquitted of all charges. As to the January 9 incident, defendant was convicted of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, false imprisonment, and torture. The jury found true the allegation that he inflicted great bodily injury on the victim, and found each of the remaining allegations not true.
Defendant was sentenced to the middle term of three years in prison on the conviction of assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury, plus a sentence enhancement of three years for inflicting great bodily injury. Sentences on the false imprisonment and torture convictions were stayed, and defendant was sentenced to a concurrent term of six months for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, for a total term of six years in prison.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction.
As noted above, the charges in this case arose from three incidents involving defendant and his former girlfriend. Only the first incident is relevant to the issue upon which we granted review.
At the time of the December 31, 1994, incident, defendant was 18 years of age and his girlfriend, Jennifer B, was 16 years of age. Both defendant and Jennifer B. testified that they engaged in sexual intercourse on that date; however, defendant testified it was consensual, and Jennifer B. testified defendant forced her to engage in intercourse by threatening her with knives.
At trial, prior to the attorneys' closing arguments, the court indicated that it would instruct the jury that it could convict defendant of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor as a lesser offense included within the charged offense of rape. Defendant's objection was overruled.
During argument, defense counsel made the following statement: "Something else has happened in this case.... They have added misdemeanors to all the charges you heard.... They added statutory rape suddenly without notice or preparation. Now, what is the role of a juror on the statutory misdemeanor rape? Your role as a juror is to fairly apply the law. That's why we don't want computers. We need the input of fair people, [defendants peers, if you will. Law as you know is not uniformly applied. I can see five cars speeding and the highway patrol is not likely to arrest any of the five. Mores, custom[s] change. Times change. And the law must be applied fairly. So if the law is not being applied fairly, that's why you need fair jurors. Now there is a case called Duncan versus Alaska [Louisiana]. It's the Supreme Court of the United States, 391 U.S. 145, 88 Supreme Court 1444 . And I would like to read to you just two lines: And further on in the case at the end are the lovely words, `A jury may, at times, afford a higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws.' Please understand."2 During the first day of deliberations, the trial court received a message from the jury foreperson indicating that Juror No. 10 3 In response, the trial court questioned Juror No. 10 outside the presence of the other jurors:
The trial court, over defendant's objection, excused Juror No. 10, replaced him with an alternate juror, and instructed the jury to begin its deliberations anew. The next day, the jury convicted defendant of the above described charges, including unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
A trial court's authority to discharge a juror is granted by Penal Code section 1089, which provides in pertinent part: "If at any time, whether before or after the final submission of the case to the jury, a juror dies or becomes ill, or upon other good cause shown to the court is found to be unable to perform his duty, or if a juror requests a discharge and good cause appears therefor, the court may order him to be discharged and draw the name of an alternate, who shall then take his place in the jury box, and be subject to the same rules and regulations as though he had been selected as one of the original jurors."4 (Italics added; see also Code Civ. Proc, §§ 233, 234.) (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 843, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 347, 919 P.2d 1280.)
A juror who refuses to follow the court's instructions is "unable to perform his duty" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1089. As soon as a jury is selected, each juror must agree to render a true verdict "`according only to the evidence presented ... and to the instructions of the court.'" (Code Civ. Proc., § 232, subd. (b), italics added.)
In People v. Collins (1976) 17 Cal.3d 687, 690, 131 Cal.Rptr. 782, 552 P.2d 742, after the jury had begun its deliberations, a juror sent a note to the judge asking to be excused because she was "`unable to follow the Court's instructions concerning deliberation.'" Upon being questioned by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jo, C079280
...instructed, leading the trial court to conclude that she was unable to perform her duties as a juror. ( People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 448, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209 ["A juror who refuses to follow the court's instructions is 'unable to perform his [or her] duty' within t......
-
People v. Gurule
...a verdict, permitting them to consider all facets of a case before making a decision. (See generally People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 450, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209; United States v. Spock (1st Cir.1969) 416 F.2d 165, In this case, the prosecution proposed to submit to the ......
-
People v. Alas
...v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 313, 21 P.3d 1225 (Cleveland) and People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 106 Cal. Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209 (Williams).1 In material respects, the facts surrounding the alleged juror misconduct before the court in Cleveland are not unli......
-
People v. Harrison
...by the trial court. Religious input has no legitimate role to play in this process. (See generally People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, 463, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 21 P.3d 1209.) But not every reference to the Bible is an appeal to religious authority. Not only is the Bible a religious t......
-
Submission to jury and deliberations
...follow the court’s instructions is unable to perform his or her duty, and the court may discharge the juror. People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 441, 448, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295. The court may discharge a juror who proposes to reach a verdict without respect to the law or the evidence. Peo......
-
Table of cases
...Rptr. 3d 589, §7:70 Williams, People v. (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 584, 75 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691, §§7:30, 7:120, 10:60 Williams, People v. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 441, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295, §§3:50, 22:150, 22:200, 22:230 Williams, People v. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 148, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 917, §1:60 Williams, Peop......
-
Jury conduct and management
...3d 322. A judge may also remove a juror for misconduct, including failure to follow the court’s instructions. People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 441, 448, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 295. Depending on the status of the case, the trial court can address juror misconduct in different ways. Misconduc......
-
Table of cases
...Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, §§7:84.2, 7:84.3, 7:85 People v. Williams (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 436, §12:37.2 People v. Williams (2001) 25 Cal.4th 441, §9:131 People v. Williams (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 85, §9:38.6 People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal4th 408, §§9:38.3, 9:116.1, 11:142.4.9, 11:12......