Opinion ID: 2615930
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Failure to Poll Jury

Text: Defendants argue the trial court erred in refusing counsel's request to poll the jury after return of its verdict and before discharge as to the effect, if any, of certain publicity which appeared in the local newspaper during the final stages of trial. The article does not appear in the record. In State v. Stewart, 219 Kan. 523, 548 P.2d 787 (1976), we set forth the guidelines to be followed by counsel in order to prove that members of the jury were aware of a newspaper article prejudicial to defendant. We stated that counsel for a defendant may request a poll of the jury after its verdict is returned, or counsel may subpoena the jurors on motion for a new trial to show they had knowledge of the article. Inasmuch as the article in question is not before us, we cannot assume the trial court abused its discretion in finding the publicity to be minimal and in refusing to question the jury as to the effect of the publicity. Further, we note defense counsel did not avail themselves of the alternative to polling the jury, that of issuing a subpoena to each juror on motion for a new trial to show possible knowledge of the article. Under the circumstances, we hold there has been no showing defendants were deprived of a fair trial because of failure of the trial court to permit a polling of the jury.