## Facts

- During a break in Daniel Driver’s preliminary hearing on charges of molesting defendant Ellena Starr Nesler’s seven-year-old son, Nesler shot and killed Driver in a Tuolumne County courtroom.
- Driver allegedly abused Nesler’s son and threatened to kill the child and his family if the abuse was disclosed; the child later exhibited severe fear and suicidal behavior.
- Nesler had a history of childhood sexual abuse and reported psychological distress connected to the allegations against Driver.
- Evidence indicated Nesler had used large doses of methamphetamine in the days before the shooting.
- A jury convicted Nesler of voluntary manslaughter with firearm use in the guilt phase; in a separate sanity phase, the same jury found her legally sane.
- After trial, Nesler moved for a new trial, asserting juror misconduct during the sanity phase based on a juror’s exposure to, and discussion of, materially adverse information not admitted into evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether a juror’s receipt and communication of materially adverse extra-record information during the sanity phase constituted juror misconduct triggering a presumption of prejudice.
2. Whether the prosecution rebutted the presumption of prejudice by showing no substantial likelihood of actual juror bias affecting the sanity verdict.
3. Whether any remedy should be limited to the sanity phase or should also disturb the guilt verdict.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that juror misconduct occurred during the sanity phase when a juror obtained and shared adverse extra-record information about Nesler.
- The misconduct gave rise to a presumption of prejudice because the information was inherently and substantially likely to influence the sanity determination.
- The prosecution did not rebut the presumption; the record did not eliminate a substantial likelihood that one or more jurors were actually biased.
- The court reversed the judgment as to the sanity phase and remanded for further proceedings limited to sanity.
- The court affirmed the voluntary manslaughter conviction and related guilt-phase determinations because the misconduct was confined to the sanity phase.

## Legal Principles

- A juror’s exposure to and communication of materially adverse extra-record information constitutes misconduct and creates a presumption of prejudice.
- The presumption is rebutted only if the record shows no substantial likelihood of actual juror bias; courts assess the nature of the material, how it reached deliberations, and its probable impact on a typical juror and on the actual deliberations.
- When misconduct is confined to a discrete phase of a bifurcated proceeding, reversal may be limited to the affected phase if the remaining phase was not reasonably impacted.

## Conclusion

Because a juror introduced materially adverse extra-record information into sanity-phase deliberations and the prosecution failed to show the resulting presumption of prejudice was rebutted, the sanity verdict was reversed and remanded for a new sanity proceeding, while the guilt verdict for voluntary manslaughter was left intact.


People v. Nesler, 16 Cal. 4th 561 (Cal. 1997)