P. v. Williams

Filed 8/17/06 P. v. Williams CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H029035

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Cruz County

Superior Court

v. No. S9-10033)

RICHARD ALLEN WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

_____________________________________/

Richard Allen Williams appeals from an order continuing his involuntary treatment as a mentally disordered offender (Pen. Code, § 2972).[1] In March 2001, Williams was committed as a mentally disordered offender (§ 2962). Since then, his commitment has been extended yearly. On December 6, 2004, another petition was filed to extend his commitment. A jury found the petition true, and the trial court extended his commitment until March 25, 2006. Williams contends: (1) section 1147 required that the trial court discharge the jury and declare a mistrial when it learned that a juror had left after reaching a verdict but before the verdict was read in court; (2) the trial court violated his constitutional rights to a fair and impartial jury when it conducted an intrusive inquiry into deliberations; and (3) juror misconduct was prejudicial. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I. Statement of Facts

Dr. Jan Hansson, a staff psychiatrist at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), testified that Williams suffered from an erotomanic delusional disorder, that is, he viewed innocuous social interactions to mean that another person was attracted to him even when she was not. Dr. Hansson based his opinion on Williams's prior criminal acts and his subsequent behavior in custody. Dr. Hansson also testified that Williams's disorder was never in remission.

Williams testified and denied that he suffered from erotomania. II. Discussion

A. Substitution of an Alternate

1. Factual Background

On March 24, 2005, the jury retired to deliberate at 2:10 p.m. At 5:00 p.m., the jury advised the bailiff that it had reached a verdict. When court assembled at 5:20 p.m., only 11 regular jurors were present. The trial court noted that the verdict could not be returned with 11 jurors if the parties requested a poll. After the prosecutor stated that he would waive the juror's presence, the trial court stated it would be unfair to make that request of defense counsel. The trial court then observed that Juror No. 8 took a cigarette break and left before court reconvened. According to the bailiff, Juror No. 8 knew that he was required to return. The trial court asked the jury to confer briefly as to when it could return the following day. After the foreperson asked if Juror No. 8 would be present at that time, the trial court explained that he would be contacted. Another member of the jury asked whether an alternate was available. The trial court stated that an alternate was available, and that it was â€