Opinion ID: 353822
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Appellant's trial commenced on March 21, 1977. The presentation of evidence consumed two days, and the case was submitted to the jury on March 23, 1977. Approximately three hours after it retired, the jury reported that it was hopelessly deadlocked. The foreman informed the court that the jurors had made no progress toward reaching a verdict. In response the court issued some additional instructions and ordered further deliberations. Several hours later the jury sent the court a note, which read: 3 One of the jurors briefly spoke with the defendant and (his) wife on March 22nd around 12:30 p. m. This information just came to light this afternoon at 3:45 p. m., and that the defendant also attempted to speak to other jurors while said jurors were on the telephone involved in a conversation. 4 Receipt of this note prompted the court to interrupt the jurors' deliberations for another discussion in open court. 5 After learning that no further progress toward a verdict had been made, the court inquired about the incidents brought to light in the note. The following colloquy between the court and a juror ensued: 6 Court: Yes, ma'am. Did the defendant talk with you yesterday? Juror: He didn't talk. He bowed head and 7 Court: Oh, is that all? 8 Juror: as I walked around here, I said, Is that your wife? 9 Court: All right. . . . 10 Apparently satisfied that no misconduct had taken place, the court moved on to a second juror, the foreman. He explained that appellant had made no attempt to discuss the case and that whatever had transpired did not have any effect. Significantly, the foreman stated: (The note) was only turned in to you for the simple reason we took a vote and felt that you should know about it. 11 After receiving this brief explanation of the foreman's contact with appellant, the court inquired as to whether the jury would be able to reach a verdict. The foreman stated that the jurors had been in the middle of some discussions when the marshall summoned them to court and requested at least fifteen minutes for further deliberations. Before the jury could retire, the following exchange occurred: 12 Court: All right. If does the conversation, of course, now, all the jurors were aware of the conversation we've just had about any talk or anything? 13 Foreman: Yes, sir. We took a vote. 14 Court: And no one has will that fact in any way affect any juror or has there been any indication that that fact has affected any juror's judgment or opinion? Has that been expressed? 15 Foreman: Yes, sir. 16 Court: It has? 17 Foreman: Yes, sir. 18 Court: And there are some jurors who feel that it did have an effect on 19 Foreman: That it should be brought to light. And I think we should pursue 20 Court: I think if there is any question in that regard, I'm inclined to not let you deliberate on the case any more, if any juror thinks it might have affected his or her judgment in any way, regardless of how innocent it might be. If any juror feels he or she was influenced by the fact there was conversation or any other thing has influenced you by the fact that there was some conversation with another person, in either event, I would not want to allow the jury to continue the deliberations, if that is the feeling of any of the jurors. 21 Under those circumstances and with what you have reported to be before, Mr. Foreman, I'm not sure I would allow any further deliberation in the case, and I think I won't in fact, I'll direct that an order of mistrial be entered, and I'll sign it later and withdraw the case from the jury's consideration. (emphasis added) 22 The jury was dismissed without the benefit of any argument from counsel as to the need or propriety of a mistrial. No alternatives to a mistrial were considered.