Opinion ID: 3153229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Conversation Among Jurors in Hallway

Text: The petitioner argues that the conversation Ms. Grindstaff reportedly overheard between Alternate Juror Ryan and Juror Zickefoose proves that the jury was prematurely deliberating on the case, in violation of the trial court’s instructions. After reviewing the transcript of the post-trial hearing, we agree with the circuit court’s conclusion that the petitioner has not proven any misconduct on this issue. As the circuit court found, even assuming, arguendo, that the conversation took place, it is far from clear that the jurors were discussing the case or the verdict. Ms. Grindstaff explained that the conversation concerned Juror Zickefoose being tired and whether he should “call off” work that night, so the reference to being “undecided” could have easily pertained to Juror Zickefoose’s indecision about his work plans. To support his argument, the petitioner asserts that the jury’s deliberations in both the guilt and mercy phases of the trial were short in duration. He contends that this brevity is proof that juror misconduct must have occurred. We disagree. The length of jury deliberations is necessarily indeterminate. The brief period of deliberations in this case could signify that the jury found overwhelming evidence of guilt not justifying the possibility of parole. Moreover, a challenge to the length of jury deliberations constitutes an intrinsic challenge to a verdict that we will not entertain. “A jury verdict may not ordinarily be impeached based on matters that occur during the jury’s deliberative process which matters 19 relate to the manner or means the jury uses to arrive at its verdict.” Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Scotchel, 168 W.Va. 545, 285 S.E.2d 384 (1981). After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when denying the motion for new trial based on the alleged conversation in the hallway.