Opinion ID: 1129186
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Younger's Right to a Fair Trial Was Compromised.

Text: ¶ 3. Younger argues that the possibility that jurors had and used cell phones destroyed the integrity of her trial and warrants a new trial in light of the merest chance that jurors engaged in prohibited communications. Younger suggests that the circuit court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury concerning the use of cellular phones and by failing to investigate juror misconduct and exposure to improper influences.
¶ 4. Younger suggests the circuit court erred by failing to instruct the jury not to use or possess cell phones while they were acting as jurors in Younger's case. The judge's preliminary instructions prohibited any communication with anyone concerning the case during the trial's duration by stating . . . you are prohibited from having any contact or conversation with the attorneys, parties, witnesses, spectators or anyone else concerning this case. Younger did not object to the judge's admonitions to the jury at the time he gave them and has failed to point to any case law finding preliminary instructions that do not contain specific prohibitions concerning cell phones to be inadequate. The failure to offer a contemporaneous objection to an instruction waives the issue on appeal. See Smith v. State, 729 So.2d 1191, 1210 (Miss.1998).
¶ 5. Younger's counsel, Cynthia Stewart, claims she witnessed the jury's foreman in possession of a cellular phone during the jury's return to the courtroom to announce their verdict and after the verdict was read immediately informed the judge of the juror's possession of a cell phone. Neither of these assertions are supported by the record. It is the responsibility of Younger to present to us a record sufficient to show the occurrence of the error she asserts in order to show that the issue was properly presented to the circuit court and timely preserved for appeal. King v. State, 857 So.2d 702, 714 (Miss.2003) (quoting Acker v. State, 797 So.2d 966, 972 (Miss.2001)); See also Pulphus v. State, 782 So.2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) (Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone. The issues must be supported and proved by the record.)