In this case, where a prosecution witness personally and directly rendered aid to a juror whose health was at imminent risk, the witness performed a special and substantial favor for the juror. Therefore, an evidentiary hearing was a proper mechanism to determine what contact occurred and whether it was prejudicial. Further, because the contact involved communication between a juror and a prosecution witness, the incident was presumptively prejudicial. See id . Accordingly, the State bears the burden to rebut this presumption and prove that the incident and its effects were harmless.
Several factors weigh in favor of a finding of harmlessness.
First, the trial court found that Officer Hood and Juror 5 did not discuss the matter pending before the court. Finally, Juror 5's encounter with Officer Hood was brief, lasting only a few minutes. In light of the State's burden to rebut the presumption of prejudice, the State must show these factors sufficiently outweigh the factors tending to show that Juror 5's encounter with Officer Hood affected the verdict. Several factors tend to show that the encounter could have affected the verdict. Despite Juror 5's assertion that he had already determined the defendant's guilt before he left the deliberation room, the effect of his encounter with Officer Hood on the other jurors is uncertain.