Key Points

  • The Fifth Appellate District affirmed a Fresno County order granting plaintiff Aleshia Martinez a new trial on jury-misconduct grounds after a $55,000 verdict against Antonio Contreras.
  • Juror declarations reporting that jurors openly discussed the defendant's wealth, his ability to pay, the absence of an insurer as defendant, and compensation for injured service members were admissible under Evidence Code section 1150 because making those statements was itself misconduct.
  • A trial court's section 657 statement of reasons must explain why the evidence supports the ground for a new trial but need not explain why the supporting evidence was admissible.
  • Contreras forfeited his hearsay, corroboration and authentication objections by not raising them in opposition to the new-trial motion.
  • Because Contreras appealed without a reporter's transcript, he could not rebut the presumption that the misconduct was prejudicial.

A California appeals court has upheld a Fresno County judge's order throwing out a $55,000 car-crash verdict and granting a new trial, after two jurors swore that the panel had openly debated whether the defendant could afford a large judgment and why an insurance company was not the one being sued.

A three-justice panel of the Fifth Appellate District ruled unanimously for plaintiff Aleshia Martinez and against defendant Antonio Contreras in an opinion filed Oct. 5 and certified for publication Oct. 9. Justice De Santos wrote for the court, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Franson and Justice Snauffer. The panel held that Contreras could not show the misconduct was harmless because he appealed without a transcript of the trial.

The decision addresses how far a court may look inside jury deliberations to set aside a verdict. California Evidence Code section 1150 allows proof of "statements made" in the jury room but bars evidence of "the mental processes" by which jurors reached a verdict. The panel held that statements spoken aloud during deliberations fall outside that bar when making them violated the judge's instructions.

Martinez and Contreras were involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 19, 2021. Martinez told the courts, and Contreras did not dispute, that he stipulated to negligence before trial and that the judge directed a verdict for her on causation. After an eight-day trial, the jury on Oct. 31, 2024, awarded her $55,000, including nothing for future economic loss.

Juror No. 10 then declared that "some jurors openly and overtly discussed [Contreras's] wealth and socioeconomic status," that some expressed sympathy for him, and that many said injured service members "would not receive much, if any, compensation for said injuries." He stated that those remarks "were all heavily discussed when coming to a final verdict amount in each category of damage items on the verdict form." Juror No. 6 declared that jurors "openly and overtly expressed concerns about why … Martinez was suing … Contreras rather than an insurance company."

Superior Court Judge Kristi C. Kapetan granted Martinez's motion for a new trial on May 2, 2025, solely on the ground of jury misconduct. The judge found that the discussions violated standard civil jury instructions barring consideration of insurance, a party's wealth or poverty, sympathy and matters outside the evidence.

Contreras first argued that the judge's statement of reasons, a written explanation that Code of Civil Procedure section 657 requires whenever a court grants a new trial, was inadequate. The panel found the statement adequate because it identified the specific evidence and instructions the judge relied on, so the appeal was reviewed only for abuse of discretion, with the burden on Contreras. De Santos wrote that the statement "is intended to illuminate why the evidence supports the ground upon which a new trial was ordered—not why the evidence relied on by the trial court was deemed admissible."

The panel also rejected Contreras's contention that the judge, by adopting Martinez's arguments, had in effect let her lawyers write the order. "That the court found Martinez's arguments persuasive and ruled in her favor based on those same arguments is not a basis for challenging the statement of reasons," De Santos wrote. "If it were, few if any orders granting a new trial would survive scrutiny."

Contreras next argued that the declarations contained hearsay and that the judge accepted them without corroboration. The panel held that he forfeited both objections, meaning he lost the right to press them on appeal, because his opposition to the new-trial motion never raised them. Because Contreras offered no counter-declarations, the court held that the facts in the admissible portions of the juror declarations were "deemed established."

On the central question, the panel held that the wealth discussions were admissible even if they revealed how jurors were thinking. The court reasoned that "the very act of discussing these matters 'heavily' as the jury was deciding the amount of a damages award against Contreras and in favor of Martinez violates CACI No. 117's prohibition against considering the wealth or poverty of a party." Juror No. 10's account showed that the discussions "were not limited to the casual or passing statements of a single juror," De Santos wrote.

The panel reached the same conclusion on the insurance discussion, the sympathy for Contreras and the remarks about service members. Although the court lacked a trial transcript, De Santos wrote, "it is fair to presume such information was outside the evidence presented at trial since it has no conceivable relevance to the litigation."

The court set aside several statements it would not rely on. Juror No. 6 had described jurors asking whether the outcome would differ if the defendant were Wal-Mart. "We do not believe jury misconduct can be premised on jurors performing a 'self-check' on their own award to ensure that they are not being influenced by improper considerations," De Santos wrote in a footnote. The panel also disregarded, as private mental processes, Juror No. 6's statement that he "personally wondered why … Martinez did not use her insurance for the injuries."

Once misconduct is shown, California law presumes it was prejudicial, and the party defending the verdict must rebut that presumption with evidence or through the reviewing court's examination of the entire record. The panel held that the second route was closed to Contreras because he supplied the court only with the new-trial papers, the jury instructions and the court's rulings, without a reporter's transcript of the trial. "Contreras has not met his burden of demonstrating that no prejudice occurred as a result of jury misconduct," the court held.

The panel affirmed the new-trial order and awarded Martinez her costs on appeal. The ruling leaves Judge Kapetan's order in place, and Martinez's claim against Contreras returns to the Fresno County Superior Court for a new trial.

Charles P. Hamamjian of Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland represented Contreras. Kristopher L. Peerali of Peerali Law represented Martinez.