The People v. Hrenko CA5

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues his constitutional right to a unanimous verdict was violated because the court failed to request that each juror orally affirm the verdict, pursuant to section 1149. Defendant further argues the error is structural and thus reversible per se. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing defendant forfeited his right to appeal the verdict by failing to object to the alleged error before the jury was discharged and that even if the issue is preserved, any error was harmless. After briefing was completed, our Supreme Court decided People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, which squarely addresses the issues here. In Anzalone, the following exchange took place between the trial court and jury after deliberations:

“‘THE COURT: We’re back on the record in the presence of the jury now as well. And ladies and gentlemen, I understand you’ve reached a verdict. Who is the foreperson? Mr. (juror)?

“‘JUROR: Yes sir.

“‘THE COURT: Hand the verdict forms to the deputy. I’ll hand those to the clerk to read the verdict.’” (People v. Anzalone, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 549.) The verdicts were then read aloud. The defendant was acquitted of vandalism, but found guilty on the…