Opinion ID: 2303289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voir Dire of Juror

Text: The defendant next asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to disqualify a juror without first conducting voir dire of the juror. After closing arguments and the charge to the jury, the defendant raised concerns about the juror's behavior: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: It was brought to my attention that juror No. 4 wasand I noticed a little of itbut was rolling her eyes, laughing, gesticulating during my closing argument. I think she's evidenced that she has already made up her mind in this case, quite clearly by how she reacted to me during my closing argument. Specifically, it's been brought to my attention that she was laughing at me at one point. I hope that's not a reflection on my abilities, but the evidence as she believes it, but I feel it's revealed that she has not remained, to this point, fair and impartial, as she's required to do. .... [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And I understand that the law presumes the jurors are going to follow the instructions. However, I think by her actions she's evidenced that she hasn't done that. THE COURT: Well, I think it's very difficult to make a presumption based on a juror's body language. I'll also say I was watching the jury, and I did not observe anything that led me to believe that the juror had so clearly made up her mind that she would not follow the instructions. I think the law is I have to presume she'll follow the instructions, so I am going toI assume it's a motion to disqualify a juror. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, it is, Your Honor. Yes. THE COURT: I'm going to deny that On appeal, the defendant contends that because he articulated a sufficient basis to suspect that the juror was biased, the trial court was required to voir dire the juror. This argument is not preserved for our review because, as the defendant concedes, he never asked the trial court to voir dire the juror. The defendant argues that preservation is not necessary because the trial court had an independent duty to question the juror. To support this argument, he relies upon cases concerning the trial court's role in investigating a colorable claim that a jury may be biased or tainted by extrinsic contact or communication, State v. Rideout, 143 N.H. 363, 365, 725 A.2d 8 (1999). When such a colorable claim is made, the court must undertake an adequate inquiry to determine whether the alleged incident occurred and, if so, whether it was prejudicial. Id. This line of cases is inapplicable when, as here, there is no allegation of any extrinsic contact or communication. See State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 279, 808 A.2d 12 (2002). Because the defendant did not preserve this argument for our review, we decline to address it.