Opinion ID: 2631750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury's possession of excluded transcript during deliberations

Text: As stated, the district court restricted its mistrial order to the lewdness verdict. Pantano argues that the continued possession of the excluded transcript infected the deliberations on both charges and, accordingly, that the district court should have granted a mistrial as to the entire case. In addition to the portion of the written statement omitted from the tape, he asserts that the transcript contained excessive blanks and omissions not reflected on the tape, and improperly failed to reflect the inflection of his voice in response to several questions soliciting admissions. More specifically, Pantano asserts that the tape accurately reflects one I did response as interrogative, whereas the transcript erroneously reflects the same I did response in the declarative voice. Under Winiarz v. State, [t]he determination of whether reversible prejudice has resulted from jurors' consideration of inadmissible evidence in a given case `is a fact question to be determined by the trial court, and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.' [21] Relevant considerations in such an analysis include (1) `whether the issue of innocence or guilt is close, [(2)] the quantity and character of the error, and [(3)] the gravity of the crime charged.' [22] Because Pantano failed to include the tape or transcript of his confession in the record on appeal, we must resolve this claim of error based upon Detective Given's testimony at trial. That testimony recounted Pantano's confession to sexual assault, which confirmed D.D.'s accusations to her parents and in open court. We conclude that the district court's limited mistrial ruling satisfies the Winiarz criteria. First, as noted, the evidence adduced as to the sexual assault count finds more than adequate support in D.D.'s testimony and Pantano's confession, as conveyed in Detective Given's testimony. Second, the quantity and character of the error appears slight, given that the jury heard the tape with the accurate voice inflections and was previously exposed to the excluded transcript, without objection, during the playing of the tape. Third, although the gravity of a sexual assault charge is serious indeed, it does not appear that the sexual assault verdict was in any way influenced by the lewdness admission or by any of the alleged blanks or omissions. Finally, Pantano offers no concrete theory that the lewdness confession somehow infected deliberations on both charges. Accordingly, any prejudice relating to the sexual assault verdict resulting from the jury's possession of the excluded transcript was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [23] Based upon this record, we conclude that the district court properly acted within its discretion in granting a mistrial as to the lewdness count only.