Reported / Citable
Background
On March 19, 2021, Antonio Contreras and Aleshia Martinez were involved in a motor vehicle accident. Martinez sued for damages. Contreras stipulated to negligence before trial, and the court granted a directed verdict on causation. An eight-day jury trial commenced October 21, 2024. On October 31, 2024, the jury awarded Martinez $55,000 total ($20,000 past economic, $0 future economic, $20,000 past noneconomic, $15,000 future noneconomic). Judgment was entered November 5, 2024. On March 10, 2025, Martinez moved for a new trial on grounds of jury misconduct, inadequate damages, and insufficiency of the evidence, supported by declarations from Jurors No. 10 and No. 6. The jurors declared that during deliberations, jurors openly discussed Contreras’s wealth and ability to pay, expressed sympathy for him, questioned why Martinez sued Contreras rather than an insurance company, discussed whether the outcome would differ against a corporation like Walmart, and compared Martinez’s injuries to those of military members who receive little compensation. Juror No. 10 stated these considerations were ‘heavily discussed when coming to a final verdict amount in each category of damage items.’ The trial court granted the motion solely on jury misconduct grounds on May 2, 2025, finding the discussions violated CACI Nos. 105 (insurance), 117 (wealth/poverty), and 5000 (sympathy/evidence), and that the misconduct was presumptively prejudicial. Contreras appealed.
The published Court of Appeal opinion affirmed the order granting a new trial; it did not reinstate or increase the original verdict.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting a new trial. It held the trial court’s statement of reasons satisfied Code of Civil Procedure section 657 by referencing specific juror declarations, identifying the CACI instructions violated, and explaining why the misconduct was prejudicial. The court reviewed for abuse of discretion because the statement of reasons was adequate. The juror declarations were admissible under Evidence Code section 1150 because they described overt statements and conduct ‘open to sight, hearing, and the other senses’—specifically, discussions of Contreras’s wealth, insurance, sympathy, and extrinsic comparisons to military members and corporations—rather than subjective mental processes. The very making of these statements constituted misconduct because they violated explicit jury instructions. Contreras forfeited hearsay, corroboration, and authentication objections by failing to raise them in the trial court. Once misconduct was established, a presumption of prejudice arose, and Contreras failed to rebut it, particularly by not providing a reporter’s transcript or developed argument showing no reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the misconduct.
The decision turns on the specific record and procedural setting described above. Its operative effect is limited to the relief stated in the disposition; issues the court did not reach remain open on remand or before the assigned district judge, as applicable.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s statement of reasons for granting a new trial on jury misconduct grounds is sufficient under section 657 if it identifies the specific evidence relied upon, the instructions violated, and the basis for finding prejudice, without needing to detail the admissibility analysis of the juror declarations.
- Juror declarations describing overt discussions during deliberations about a defendant’s wealth, ability to pay, insurance status, sympathy for a party, or extrinsic comparisons (e.g., to military compensation or corporate defendants) are admissible under Evidence Code section 1150 because they constitute objectively ascertainable misconduct, not protected mental processes.
- The ‘very making of the statement’ constitutes misconduct when jurors discuss matters explicitly prohibited by jury instructions (here, CACI Nos. 105, 117, 5000), rendering such statements admissible to impeach the verdict.
- Objections to juror declarations on hearsay, corroboration, or authentication grounds are forfeited if not raised in the trial court; the burden is on the opposing party to present counter-affidavits or evidence to rebut the declarations.
- Once jury misconduct is established, prejudice is presumed, and the burden shifts to the verdict winner to rebut the presumption by showing no reasonable probability of a different outcome; an inadequate appellate record (e.g., no reporter’s transcript) and undeveloped arguments result in forfeiture of the prejudice challenge.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the trial court’s broad discretion in granting new trials based on jury misconduct and clarifies the admissibility standard under Evidence Code section 1150. It confirms that juror discussions of extrinsic, improper factors—such as a party’s wealth, insurance, or sympathy—during damages deliberations constitute overt misconduct, not protected mental processes, especially when the jurors themselves state the discussions were ‘heavily discussed’ in reaching the verdict. The ruling underscores the importance of timely objections in the trial court and the heavy burden on the verdict winner to rebut the presumption of prejudice with a complete record. It also clarifies that section 657 does not require the statement of reasons to address the admissibility of supporting evidence, only the grounds and reasons for granting the new trial.
For California practitioners, the practical lesson is to match the requested remedy to the governing procedural vehicle and to preserve a record addressing the court’s stated legal test. The ruling should not be read more broadly than its posture permits.