California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Heaps is that ex parte communications with a deliberating jury concerning a juror's ability to deliberate require reversal unless the prosecution proves harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt, under circumstances where the trial court fails to notify counsel of the jury's note raising competency concerns and the record does not establish how the jury resolved those concerns.

Appeal from judgment after jury trial in Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Defendant Appellant was James Mason Heaps — the gynecological oncologist convicted of sexual crimes against patients during medical examinations.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — prosecuting Heaps for sexual battery by fraud, sexual exploitation, and sexual penetration of unconscious persons.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for sexual crimes. [No cross-claims applicable.]

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Heaps worked as a gynecological oncologist at UCLA and was charged with sexual crimes against seven former patients during medical examinations, including sexual battery by fraud, sexual exploitation, and sexual penetration of unconscious persons.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court failed to notify counsel when the jury sent a note stating Juror No. 15 had language barriers preventing proper deliberation and had already made up his mind, and the judicial assistant spoke with the jury about this note without counsel present, ruling that this was constitutional error requiring harmless error analysis.

The key question(s) on Appeal: Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the deprivation of counsel during ex parte communications with the deliberating jury about a juror's competency was harmless error.

The Appellate Court held the prosecution failed to prove harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt where the judicial assistant could not recall critical details of conversations with jurors about the language barrier concerns and the record did not establish how the jury resolved the competency issues raised in their note.

The case is inapplicable when the trial court properly notifies counsel of jury communications, when ex parte communications are merely ministerial exchanges, when witnesses can clearly establish what was communicated to jurors, or when the record establishes how jury concerns about juror competency were resolved.

The case leaves open what specific evidence would be sufficient to prove harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt in cases involving ex parte communications about juror competency, and how trial courts should properly investigate jury concerns about language barriers during deliberations.