Wednesday, July 8, 2026
Page 3
C.A. Says Sleeping Juror Did Not Undermine Defendant’s Attempted Murder Conviction
Opinion Says No Error in Declining to Kick Panelist Who Admitted He Nodded Off While Expert Was Testifying, Had Been ‘Trying Hard Not to Fall Asleep’ During Other Portions of Trial
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A defendant is not entitled to have his attempted-murder conviction upended based on a trial judge declining to excuse a juror who admitted to nodding off during testimony by a crime scene technician and that he had been “trying hard not to fall asleep” during other portions of a trial, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held yesterday, highlighting that case law suggests a reluctance to overturn jury verdicts on the ground of inattentiveness.
In yesterday’s unpublished opinion authored by Justice Arlan L. Harrell, the court said that the judge acted within his discretion in relying on the juror’s self-assessment that he had taken in “key” points of evidence and only fell asleep for a matter of seconds as sufficient to overcome the assertion that the verdict was undermined because the sleepy panelist had missed material portions of the trial.
The court also rejected the defendant’s claim that the trial judge erred in answering the jury’s request for a definition of “intent to kill” by directing the panel to apply the ordinary meaning of the words. Harrell wrote:
“[W]e are unaware of, and [the defendant] fails to point to, any authority that ‘intent to kill’ in the context of attempted murder has a technical, legal meaning that differs from the common usage of those words.”
Acting Presiding Justice Jennifer R.S. Detjen and Justice Donald R. Franson Jr. joined in the decision.
Bakersfield Shooting
The questions arose after Samuel Carranza was accused of attempted murder, among other charges, relating to a February 2024 shooting in Bakersfield during which a 19-year-old woman, identified only as “A.R.,” was hit in the head outside of a house party, causing brain damage.
During the June 2024 trial, the prosecutor informed Kern Superior Court Judge Bradley King that “Juror No. 7” had been falling asleep and “missing substantial portions” of the crime scene technician’s testimony. King acknowledged that court staff had reported similar observations and conducted an inquiry of the panelist the following day.
Admitting that he had nodded off for a few seconds and may have been “fighting it off” during the crime scene technician’s testimony, the juror said that he “may have missed some” of the testimony but that he “remember[ed] some key points of evidence that were brought forward.” He promised to notify the bailiff if he felt sleepy again and needed a break.
Warrant Excusal
King declined to follow defense counsel’s suggestion that the juror be dismissed, saying that he was not inclined to find that he had missed so much testimony as to warrant his excusal. That afternoon, Carranza’s lawyer advised the court that the same panelist appeared to be dozing off again and looked like he was struggling to stay awake during testimony.
Another inquiry was conducted, and the juror said he was “trying hard not to fall asleep” and that he had not “completely knocked out yet” that day. After confirming that he had heard all the evidence presented, King denied Carranza’s request to excuse the panelist.
On July 5, 2024, the jury found Carranza guilty of attempted premeditated murder, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and shooting at an occupied motor vehicle, among other charges and enhancements. King sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of parole after seven years, plus 25 years to life on a firearm allegation.
Good Cause
On appeal, Carranza argued that the record establishes good cause to discharge the juror based on convincing proof that he actually slept during the trial, causing him to miss evidence presented by the prosecution, and that King conducted an inadequate inquiry into the panelist’s ability to perform his duties.
Recognizing that “a trial court may discharge a juror upon a showing of ‘good cause’ ” that he is unable to perform his duty, Harrell pointed out that courts are obligated to hold an inquiry whenever reasonably necessary to determine whether a panelist should be discharged.
However, the jurist cited case law establishing that a new trial is not warranted due to a sleeping juror unless the panelist was actually asleep during material portions of the trial. Applying the standard, he opined:
“Juror No. 7 admitted he may have missed testimony but claimed to remember key points of evidence brought forward. He confirmed he was just nodding off for a second or two but then immediately woke up. This was not convincing proof that Juror No. 7 was actually asleep during material portions of the trial.”
He added:
“Nor does the record support Carranza’s assertion the court recast or minimized Juror No. 7’s admission that he may have missed testimony. Rather, the court’s questioning sought to investigate if Juror No. 7 was truly asleep given his equivocal report on whether he missed any testimony. The court was satisfied based on its inquiry that Juror No. 7 did not miss a substantial period of the trial and the record supports that finding.”
Saying that “[t]he trial court was obliged to conduct further inquiry based upon defense counsel’s observations the next day that Juror No. 7 had purportedly dozed off four times during the morning session,” he remarked:
“Defense counsel’s mere speculation Juror No. 7 ‘might have been sleeping’ is insufficient to discharge a juror….This speculation was countered by Juror No. 7’s representations that he had not fallen asleep or missed any evidence.”
Noting that “[t]he court was in the best position to observe Juror No. 7’s demeanor,” Harrell concluded:
“The court conducted an adequate inquiry into Juror No. 7’s attentiveness and did not abuse its discretion by declining to discharge this juror for misconduct.”
The case is People v. Carranza, F088427.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company