Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Engstrom

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 28, 2011No. C065982PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J.

Where, as here, the jurors do not rely on extraneous materials or evidence, or conduct an improper experiment, is it misconduct for them to reject and correct what appeared to the jurors to be an expert’s formulaic miscalculation of the anticipated yield of an indoor marijuana garden? The trial court answered “yes,” and granted defendant Eric Anthony Engstrom’s motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. We disagree.

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and cultivation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358),…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. People v. PanahCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
  2. People v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. People v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
  4. People v. CollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  5. In Re StankewitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. P. v. Cabrera CA4/3California Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. People v. Nelson CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2016
  3. People v. RuffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
  4. People v. Vincent CA2/4California Court of Appeal · 2015
  5. Storz v. Pine Mountain Club Prop. Owners Assn. CA5California Court of Appeal · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API