Title: State v. Polinski

State: nebraska

Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court

Document:

429 N.W.2d 725 (1988) 230 Neb. 43 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Jon P. POLINSKI, Appellant. No. 87-1093. Supreme Court of Nebraska. September 30, 1988. *726 Edward F. Fogarty, of Fogarty, Lund & Gross, for appellant. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and David Edward Cygan, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ., and COLWELL, District Judge, Retired. COLWELL, District Judge, Retired. Jon P. Polinski was convicted by a jury in the county court for Douglas County, Nebraska, of driving while intoxicated. He was sentenced to 6 months' probation and fined $235, and his driver's license was suspended for 60 days. Polinski appealed to the district court, alleging prosecutor misconduct. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by the district court. Polinski now appeals to this court. We reverse and remand for a new trial. Polinski assigns only one error: The court below erred in not determining that defendant was prejudiced and entitled to a mistrial because of inappropriate contact with a juror made by the prosecuting attorney. During the afternoon recess of Polinski's trial, defendant's counsel saw the prosecutor talking with a juror, and he asked the prosecutor to accompany him into the judge's chambers, where this record was made: *727 MR. SMALHEISER: I think, sure if I had done that, that would have been improper but I certainly didn't do that. After sentencing, Polinski's attorney filed a motion for a new trial, accompanied by his affidavit regarding the above-related contact. The prosecutor also filed an affidavit. There is nothing in either the attorneys' affidavits or the transcript of the in-chambers discussion to indicate that the conversation involved anything other than "small talk." The juror involved was later selected jury foreman. There is no doubt that the circumstances of the conversation between the prosecutor and juror were improper, leaving the question of whether defendant had a fair trial before an impartial jury. We first turn to approved trial procedures in similar circumstances. "`"`It is the duty of a trial court to see that defendants in criminal cases are tried by a jury such that not even the suspicion of bias (leaning) or prejudice (prejudgment) can attach to any member thereof.'..."'" State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79, 86, 120 N.W.2d 541, 546 (1963). In State v. Myers, 190 Neb. 466, 209 N.W.2d 345 (1973), it was brought to the attention of the court that some impaneled jurors might be subject to challenge because of prior service in a criminal case. The trial judge denied a motion to reexamine those jurors before proceeding to trial. On appeal, this court said at 472, 209 N.W.2d at 349: Later, in State v. Robinson, 198 Neb. 785, 255 N.W.2d 835 (1977), it was held appropriate and not prejudicial to the defendant to hold a hearing and examine jurors on the issue of an impartial jury under circumstances where two jurors might have become unfairly prejudiced from hearing out-of-court statements concerning the credibility of the State's witnesses. In the case at bar, the trial court did nothing to determine whether the juror could continue as an impartial juror. The court simply denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial. We hold that where, during a jury trial, the judge has information that might reasonably be an improper, out-of-court contact between the prosecutor and a juror, it is error for the judge to fail to hold a hearing outside of the presence of the jury to determine whether or not defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury had been violated. It is not enough that both counsel agreed that the contact was "small talk." The trial judge must determine the impartiality of the juror, which generally will require his or her examination. Polinski's conviction and sentence must be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.