# People v. Cox

> California Supreme Court · May 2, 1991 · 53 Cal. 3d 618

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558701

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 2, 1991
- **Citations:** 53 Cal. 3d 618; 280 Cal. Rptr. 692; 91 Daily Journal DAR 5280; 809 P.2d 351; 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3261; 1991 Cal. LEXIS 1723
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Broussard
- **Judges:** Arabian, Broussard, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 347 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by People v. McKinnon, 52 Cal. 4th 610 (2011).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558701

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that use of "substantial" to modify mitigating factor concerning "domination of another person" did not constitutionally circumscribe jury's evaluation of that mitigating factor

## Opinion text

BROUSSARD, J.,
Concurring.—I concur in the judgment, but write separately to express my concern on one point involving the motion for new trial and defendant’s unsubstantiated claim that there was serious juror misconduct.
The sequence of events following the entry of the judgment up until the hearing on the motion for new trial is rather disturbing. There is some suggestion that the prosecutor, using the media, may have caused some jurors to become reluctant to speak to defense investigators about the possibility of jury misconduct. While I agree with the majority opinion that the record contains insufficient evidence regarding the publicity to determine that the prosecutor’s conduct caused the jurors to refuse to speak to the defense investigators, and note that the trial court made every accommodation to defendant to encourage jurors to respond to defendant’s questions, I would condemn any use of the press for the purpose of discouraging juror contact with the defense team as flagrant misconduct. I cannot agree with the majority that the prosecutor’s “posttrial activities are generally not subject to any constitutional restraint.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 700.) Obviously the prosecutor cannot act in such a way as to impair a defendant’s right to a fair hearing at a motion for new trial, at imposition of sentence, or on appeal. In the case of such misconduct, the failure of the defendant to present a proper affidavit to support the motion for new trial would have to be excused.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9558701. Public record. Not legal advice.