Title: New Jersey v. Horton
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 
State: new-jersey
Issuer: new-jersey Supreme Court
Date: June 10, 2020

New Jersey v. Horton Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary The trial court excused and replaced a juror who had a preplanned vacation and who had been part of deliberations after the jury announced that they had reached a partial verdict. The judge did not have the jury return a partial verdict. Instead, the court excused the juror and reconstituted the jury with a replacement juror. The court denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial and defendant’s request to voir dire the jury to determine its ability to begin anew with the replacement juror. The jury reached a unanimous verdict three days later. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed and reversed. The Supreme Court found that in light of the defendant facing charges of murder, attempted murder, and weapons possession offenses, "we cannot know whether the jury will 'start anew' with the entry of a substitute juror and discard their views simply because there is a new juror amongst them. Nor can we know if the new juror will exercise independence or simply go along with the opinions of the existing jurors. We cannot know or speculate whether the replacement juror was a 'full participant[] in the mutual exchange of ideas.' The safest and fairest course is to take a partial verdict, declare a mistrial, and constitute a new jury to hear the remaining counts." Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of New Jersey? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of New Jersey. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here .(NOTE: The status of this decision is .) SYLLABUSThis syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court. In the interest of brevity, portions of an opinion may not have been summarized. State v. Antwan J. Horton (A-26-19) (082698)Argued April 28, 2020 – Decided June 10, 2020PER CURIAM In this appeal, the Court considers whether a trial court may replace a juror after the jury announced that they had reached a partial verdict. The trial court excused and replaced a juror who had a preplanned vacation and who had been part of deliberations after the jury announced that they had reached a partial verdict. The judge did not have the jury return a partial verdict. Instead, the court excused the juror and reconstituted the jury with a replacement juror. The court denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial and defendant’s request to voir dire the jury to determine its ability to begin anew with the replacement juror. The jury reached a unanimous verdict three days later. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.HELD: Under settled law, juror substitution is impermissible if the jury has reached a partial verdict. The proper course is for the trial court to take the partial verdict and declare a mistrial on the open counts.1. In a case like this, courts cannot know whether the jury will “start anew” with the entry of a substitute juror and discard their views simply because there is a new juror amongst them. Nor can courts know if the new juror will exercise independence or simply go along with the opinions of the existing jurors. Courts cannot know or speculate whether the replacement juror was a full participant in the mutual exchange of ideas. The safest and fairest course is to take a partial verdict, declare a mistrial, and constitute a new jury to hear the remaining counts. (p. 4) REVERSED and REMANDED to the trial court for a new trial.CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion. 1 SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY A- 26 September Term 2019 082698 State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Antwan J. Horton, a/k/a Anatwan Hortan, Antione Jameson, Antione Jenkins, Antoine Smith, Antowne Horton, Antwan Jackson, Raseen Wallace, Rashad Smith, Rasheen Wallace, and Rayquan Smith, Defendant-Appellant. On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division. Argued Decided April 28, 2020 June 10, 2020Whitney F. Flanagan, Assistant Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant (Joseph E. Krakora, Public Defender, attorney; Whitney F. Flanagan, and David A. Gies, Designated Counsel, of counsel and on the briefs).Michele C. Buckley, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent (Lyndsay V. Ruotolo, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney; Michele C. Buckley, of counsel and on the briefs). 1 PER CURIAM This appeal comes before the Court to consider the actions of the trialcourt in excusing and replacing a juror who had a preplanned vacation andwho had been part of deliberations. Just before the substitution, all the jurors,including the juror with the preplanned vacation, announced that they hadreached a partial verdict. The judge did not have the jury return a partialverdict. Instead, the court excused the juror and reconstituted the jury with areplacement juror. Defendant argued that the deliberations had proceeded too far toreconstitute the jury, and on that basis moved for a mistrial. Nevertheless, thetrial judge denied that motion. Defendant requested that the judge voir dire thejury to determine its ability to begin anew with the replacement juror. Instead,the judge instructed the reconstituted jury to discard the partial verdict andbegin deliberations anew. The jury reached a unanimous verdict three dayslater. Defendant appealed, arguing that the juror substitution after the jury hadreached a partial verdict denied him a fair trial. The Appellate Division affirmed defendant’s conviction, speculating thatthe substituted juror was a “full participant[] in the mutual exchange of ideas.” 2 The Appellate Division noted that during deliberations, the reconstituted juryrequested transcripts, asked for testimony to be played back, and askedadditional questions before returning a verdict three days later. Relying on thetotality of the circumstances, the court found that the trial court did not abuseits discretion by substituting a juror. We disagree. We have rich and fulsome jurisprudence on the issue ofjuror substitution in the face of a jury having reached a partial verdict. Quitesimply, substitution is impermissible. The proper course is for the trial cou rtto take the partial verdict and declare a mistrial on the open counts. “[W]hen the circumstances suggest a strong inference that the jury hasaffirmatively reached a determination on one or more factual or legal issuesthe trial court should not substitute an alternate for an excused juror.” State v.Ross, 218 N.J. 130, 151 (2014). We have “h[e]ld that substitution of a jurorafter the return of partial verdicts for the purpose of continuing deliberations inorder to reach final verdicts on remaining counts [constitutes] plain error.”State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339, 354 (1987). “[I]f a partial verdict has beenrendered, or the circumstances otherwise suggest that jurors have decided oneor more issues in the case, including guilt or innocence, the trial court shouldnot authorize a juror substitution, but should declare a mistrial.” Ross, 218 N.J. at 151; accord State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112, 133 (2004) (noting that the 3 reconstituted jury returned a verdict in twenty-three minutes, which signaledthat minds were closed when the alternate joined the deliberations, andobserving that, “[i]n this posture, judicial economy had to bow to defendant’sfair trial rights and a mistrial should have been declared”); see also Corsaro, 107 N.J. at 342, 344, 354 (holding that “the trial court should either havedeclared a recess until” an “apparently intoxicated juror” could resumedeliberations “or declared a mistrial on the open charges”). That settled body of law directly applies here but was not followed at thetrial or appellate level. In a case like this, where defendant was facing chargesof murder, attempted murder, and weapons possession offenses, we cannotknow whether the jury will “start anew” with the entry of a substitute j uror anddiscard their views simply because there is a new juror amongst them. Nor canwe know if the new juror will exercise independence or simply go along withthe opinions of the existing jurors. We cannot know or speculate whether thereplacement juror was a “full participant[] in the mutual exchange of ideas.”The safest and fairest course is to take a partial verdict, declare a mistrial, andconstitute a new jury to hear the remaining counts. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division andremand to the trial court for a new trial. 4 CHIEF JUSTICE RABNER and JUSTICES LaVECCHIA, ALBIN, PATTERSON, FERNANDEZ-VINA, SOLOMON, and TIMPONE join in this opinion. 5