Opinion ID: 1501117
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror Conduct and Adequate Hearing

Text: Brown contends that the trial court erred when it overruled his motion for a full and fair hearing to determine whether venirepersons were biased against him and whether juror misconduct had occurred. Brown alleges that a venireperson Kathy H. reported to the court that she had discussed the case with fellow venirepersons, researched Brown's case during voir dire, overheard a male venireperson advising how to get excused from the jury, and overheard other venirepersons discussing Brown's guilt or innocence. The trial court conducted a juror misconduct hearing for the parties to question the venireperson, Kathy H. Brown contends that the trial court conducted inadequate juror misconduct hearings. Brown moved to quash whatever jurors have been questioned and whatever jurors have been called in this case .... on the grounds that there is juror misconduct going on all over the place. The trial court overruled the motion, finding Kathy H. not credible. The trial court found that Kathy H. admitted that she lied about the number of people she had contact with. Kathy H.'s story about one Debbie was refuted by the record. The trial court did not believe that Kathy H. did not understand that she was not supposed to the discuss the case. Brown says the trial court erred by not granting him individual questioning of jurors during voir dire. Brown had moved to question the venirepersons from the first group of 75 individually and outside each other's hearing. Individual questioning was denied, but Brown was allowed to question the venirepersons in panels of six. No venireperson acknowledged that he or she was aware of any misconduct. Brown further contends that the trial court erred because it failed to recall about 35 venirepersons who were stricken for cause based on their inability to vote for death under any circumstances. He argues that it suggests that Kathy H.'s allegations about the existence of a certain man advising venirepersons as to methods of avoiding juror service are correct. A trial court's decisions concerning juror misconduct will not be disturbed unless there is abuse of discretion. State v. Brown, 939 S.W.2d 882, 883 (Mo. banc 1997). The trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is clearly against logic of circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. Id. If reasonable persons can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. Id. at 883-884. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The trial court found venireperson Kathy H., prime source of the misconduct allegations, incredible and impugned her integrity. State v. Wise, 879 S.W.2d 494, 506 (Mo. banc 1994). The record does not substantially support the assertion that the venirepersons were exposed to improper communications. Brown was not prejudiced by the actions of the trial court. Brown further alleges that Kathy H. indicated that she and other venirepersons she had spoken with were confused by whether MAI  CR3d 300.04, which was read to them before each recess, applied to them before they were selected to be on the jury. Brown had submitted a proposed non-MAI instruction, which the trial court denied. MAI  CR3d 300.04 sufficiently addresses the venirepersons. Where an applicable MAI  CR instructions exists, the court is required under Rule 28.02 to submit that instruction. State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 603 (Mo. banc 1997).