## Facts

- Robert Bee Hutchinson was charged with possession of marijuana for sale; a jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of possession of marijuana.
- After the verdict, defense counsel moved for a new trial supported by a juror affidavit alleging misconduct by the court’s bailiff during deliberations.
- The affidavit alleged the bailiff repeatedly complained, in an angry manner, that the jury was taking too long and implied it should reach a verdict faster.
- The affidavit also asserted the affiant agreed to a “compromise” verdict in part to avoid being kept deliberating overnight.
- The trial court denied the new trial motion and refused to consider the affidavit on the ground juror affidavits could not be used to impeach a verdict.
- Hutchinson appealed from the order granting probation; he also sought review of the denial of a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether California Evidence Code § 1150 permits juror testimony/affidavits to prove objectively verifiable external misconduct affecting deliberations.
2. Whether a bailiff’s statements and conduct pressuring the jury about the length of deliberations constitute improper external influence that may be shown by juror affidavit.
3. Whether the trial court erred prejudicially by refusing to consider the affidavit’s admissible portions when ruling on the new trial motion.

## Decision

- The appeal from the order denying a new trial was dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order.
- The Supreme Court held jurors are competent under Evidence Code § 1150 to testify to objective facts—statements, conduct, conditions, or events—open to sight and hearing that may have improperly influenced the verdict.
- The Court held the affidavit’s descriptions of the bailiff’s words, tone, and behavior were admissible as evidence of overt, external misconduct by a court officer.
- The Court held the affidavit’s statements about the affiant’s internal reasons for joining the verdict (e.g., compromise to avoid overnight deliberations) were inadmissible because they concerned mental processes.
- The Court vacated the order denying the new trial motion and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion after evaluating the admissible showing of bailiff misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence Code § 1150 allows proof, including by juror affidavit, of objectively observable “statements, conduct, conditions, or events” that may have subjected the verdict to improper external influences.
- Evidence Code § 1150 bars inquiry into jurors’ mental processes, including subjective reasoning, motives, or how an influence affected a juror’s decision.
- Misconduct by court personnel (including a bailiff) that pressures jurors regarding the pace or outcome of deliberations is an external influence and may be established through admissible juror evidence describing the overt acts.
- When a proffered juror affidavit contains both admissible objective facts and inadmissible mental-process material, the court must consider the admissible portions in ruling on a new trial motion.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that juror affidavits may be used to show overt, external influences on deliberations under Evidence Code § 1150, while strictly excluding testimony about jurors’ internal thought processes, and it required the trial court to consider the admissible allegations of bailiff pressure when deciding whether a new trial was warranted.


People v. Hutchinson, 455 P.2d 132 (Cal. 1969)