iLaw Dictionary			USAConstitution Law
						California			BankruptcyCode.US
						Law Dictionary			iBusiness Center.US
						Prejudicial Instructional Error			United States Law.US

A Legal and Business Portal-Home

iLaw Dictionary
California
Law Dictionary
Prejudicial Instructional Error
(Chapman)

Prejudicial Instructional Error
(Chapman)

 4.  The Error Was Prejudicial

            While the giving of an erroneous instruction is not inherently prejudicial (Soule v. General Motors Corp. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 548, 573-580), we conclude that the error here requires reversal.  “[I]nstructional error requires reversal only ‘ “where it seems probable” that the error “prejudicially affected the verdict.” ’  [Citation.]  The reviewing court should consider not only the nature of the error, ‘including its natural and probable effect on a party’s ability to place his full case before the jury,’ but the likelihood of actual prejudice as reflected in the individual trial record, taking into account ‘(1) the state of the evidence, (2) the effect of other instructions, (3) the effect of counsel’s arguments, and (4) any indications by the jury itself that it was misled.’ ”  (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 983.)

            Here, the instructional error centered on the key issue in the case.  Without a finding that Enos was a supervisor, the jury could not reach the issue of whether Enos’s actions constituted sexual harassment.  The record contained substantial evidence suggesting Enos had a responsibility to direct Chapman’s work such that without the additional requirements in the modified instruction, a jury finding that Enos was a supervisor was likely, or at least possible.  County emphasized the special instruction in its closing argument, noting that the “critical factor” was whether the person giving the direction was “fully accountable and responsible for the performance and work product of the employee . . . .”  “That is why, with each investigator or supervisor on the witness stand, you heard a line of questioning about whether [Enos] would be subject to criticism or discipline if Ms. Chapman made a mistake on a case, or how does the criticism come to Ms. Chapman for that.  And to a person, the policy is consistent; the criticism comes from the Chief Investigator to the investigator in the office.  Not — It is not laid upon the shoulders of the Deputy District Attorney.”  Further, counsel for Enos informed the jury that “responsibility to direct does not mean what you would ordinarily think it means.  It has a special legal meaning, and that is the instruction that Judge Beaupre read to you.  [¶] The real key to that, and Mr. Senneff referred to it as the critical element, is, was Bruce Enos held fully accountable and responsible for Ms. Chapman’s work performance? . . . [¶] . . . And the only evidence you heard was that Mr. Enos was never held accountable for the work of any DA Investigator.”

            In this case, there is also the unusual circumstance that the jury presented a statement together with its verdict.  The jury stated, in part, “We, the jury, believe that we have followed the letter of the law and the instructions provided to us by the Court regarding the interpretation of the law as it relates to each of the charges made by the plaintiff in this case.  [¶] However, we, the jury, would like to state for the record that reaching these verdicts was made extremely difficult out of concern that these verdicts could send some unintended messages. . . . [¶] Should the defendants interpret our verdicts as meaning that, . . . ‘business as usual is okay,’ . . . at the County regarding the handling of alleged workplace harassment, then we believe that our verdicts could unintentionally contribute to the possibility of future similarly tragic occurrences.  [¶] We sincerely hope that this trial results in some positive actions at the County that minimize the likelihood of such cases coming before a jury again.”

            The record as a whole leaves little doubt that the modified jury instruction was instrumental in leading the jury to find that Enos was not a supervisor.[11]  We, therefore, conclude it is reasonably probable that the instructional error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.  (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)
CHAPMAN v. ENOS, No. A097943 (Cal. 1st App. Dist. March 10, 2004)
 

LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW

CHAPMAN v. ENOS, No. A097943 (Cal. 1st App. Dist. March 10, 2004)
The trial court erroneously modified the standard jury instruction
on the definition of "supervisor" for purposes of the Fair
Employment and Housing Act. Because there is little doubt that this
error led the jury to find that plaintiff's alleged harasser was not
a supervisor, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/slip/2003/a097943.html     
CHAPMAN v. ENOS, No. A097943 (Cal. 1st App. Dist. March 10, 2004-LD)

[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/a097943.pdf       
 

========================================================================

Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet |Check Your Credit Score
Directory of Medical Dictionaries: Table of Contents | California Injury (Torts) Law
USA Entertainment.US | FederalCriminalProcedure.Com |United Statea News
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | Library of Congress
United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE | USA Entertainment.US
iBusiness Center.US | United States Law: Constitutional Law: Constitutions of  The World: TITLE PAGE
California Contracts Law.Com | California Injury (Torts) Law
Phone Directories From Around the World New | California Law Revision Commission 
California Civil Procedure.Com | Federal Civil Procedure.Com