Opinion ID: 2791285
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: On October 10, 2013[,] I returned to the delib-

Text: erations room with the other jurors and changed my vote to guilty. A hearing was conducted, and the juror testified that on the third or fourth day of trial, he had recognized a person in the audience that he knew from “growing up.” The juror spoke with his brother after the first day of the jury’s deliberations. The juror told his brother that he was serving on a jury for Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. STRICKLIN 565 Cite as 290 Neb. 542 a murder trial. Although the juror did not inform his brother of Stricklin’s or Newman’s name, his brother knew about the trial and explained that he knew Stricklin and Newman. The juror’s brother told the juror that Stricklin and Newman had known their father from growing up together. Although the juror’s brother and father were not his biological family, the juror testified that he considered them as such. As to the juror’s knowledge of Stricklin and Newman, the juror confirmed that prior to the conversation with his brother, he had not made a connection between himself, his family, and either of the defendants. And he testified that he had never met Stricklin or Newman and that he had not known who they were. Additionally, the juror indicated that his brother did not inform him that Newman and their father had a negative history or relationship. And his brother did not tell the juror that Newman and their father had ever been involved in a physical altercation. The juror also testified as to his vote, and he confirmed that he had discussed his desire to vote not guilty with his brother. The juror told his brother that he was the only member of the jury who wanted to vote not guilty and that he did not know what he was going to do. At the hearing, the district court excluded certain portions of the juror’s affidavit on the basis that they impermissibly revealed the juror’s mental processes under Neb. Evid. R. 606(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-606(2) (Reissue 2008). However, in its subsequent written order, the court stated that the portions were excluded because they were misleading. Additionally, the district court received an affidavit from the presiding juror, stating that no outside or personal information regarding either Stricklin or Newman was brought to the jury’s attention during deliberations. The district court overruled Stricklin’s motion for new trial. The court agreed that the juror had committed misconduct in communicating with his brother during deliberations; however, it concluded that no prejudice resulted from the misconduct. And it further rejected the defendants’ assertion that the juror had committed additional misconduct in failing to reveal his family connection with the defendants. Nebraska Advance Sheets 566 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS (b) Resolution
Stricklin’s arguments as to the evidence considered by the district court pertain to the stricken portions of the juror’s affidavit. The court excluded all portions of the affidavit relating to the juror’s vote, the jury’s deliberations, the juror’s knowledge of Stricklin and Newman, and the altercation between the juror’s father and Newman. And during the juror’s testimony, it further prevented the defendants from inquiring into whether the juror believed that the State had failed to meet its burden of proof, whether the juror had been experiencing a “moral dilemma,” and whether the jury had considered the defendants’ failure to testify. We find no prejudicial error in the exclusion of the above evidence. The admissibility of evidence concerning the validity of a jury’s verdict is governed by rule 606(2), which provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon his or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning his mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may his affidavit or evidence of any statement by him indicating an effect of this kind be received for these purposes. [33] Additionally, we have explained that no evidence may be received concerning the effect of any statement upon a juror’s mind, its influence upon the juror, or the mental proc­ esses of a juror.47 Rule 606(2) does not allow a juror’s affidavit to impeach a verdict on the basis of jury motives, methods, 47 See State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985, 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. STRICKLIN 567 Cite as 290 Neb. 542 misunderstanding, thought processes, or discussions during deliberations.48 The juror’s statements as to his desire to vote not guilty, pressure from the other jurors to change his vote, the juror’s “moral dilemma,” and the jury’s reliance upon the defendants’ failure to testify fell directly within the purview of rule 606(2). These statements revealed the juror’s mental processes and attempted to impeach the jury’s verdicts on the basis of its motives, methods, and discussions during deliberations. As such, the statements were inadmissible and could not have been considered by the district court. And the questions posed to the juror during his testimony similarly attempted to elicit such improper information. Stricklin argues that the district court’s exclusion of the above statements, particularly the jury’s reliance upon the defendants’ failure to testify, violated the court’s duty to undertake a full investigation into the allegations of juror misconduct. And he cites the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s holding in United States v. McKinney49 that when jury misconduct is alleged in a motion for new trial, the trial judge must conduct a full investigation to ascertain whether jury misconduct actually occurred and, if it occurred, the judge must determine whether or not it was prejudicial. [34] We have held that when an allegation of jury misconduct is made and is supported by a showing which tends to prove that serious misconduct occurred, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred. If it occurred, the trial court must then determine whether it was prejudicial to the extent that the defendant was denied a fair trial. If the trial court determines that the misconduct did not occur or that it was not prejudicial, adequate findings are to be made so that the determination may be reviewed.50 48 See id. 49 United States v. McKinney, 429 F.2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1970). 50 State v. Arnold, 253 Neb. 789, 572 N.W.2d 74 (1998). Nebraska Advance Sheets 568 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS However, this duty to hold an evidentiary hearing does not extend into matters which are barred from inquiry under rule 606(2). And the jury’s consideration of the defendants’ failure to testify was clearly barred from inquiry under that rule.51 The district court permitted the juror to be examined as to the nature of the alleged misconduct and the extent of the extraneous information that he received. We see no violation of the court’s duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing. As to the statements in the affidavit regarding the juror’s knowledge of Stricklin and Newman and the altercation between Newman and the juror’s father, the exclusion of the statements did not cause Stricklin prejudice. At the hearing, the defendants were permitted to question the juror as to his conversation with his brother, his family’s relationship with the defendants, his knowledge of the defendants, and whether he had been informed of any negative history or altercation involving his father and Newman. Finally, we find no error in the district court’s receipt of the affidavit of the presiding juror. The affidavit merely denied that extraneous information was brought to the jury’s attention during deliberations. Rule 606(2) permits a juror to provide evidence on the limited question of “whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.”
[35] Stricklin also challenges the district court’s ultimate conclusion that he was not prejudiced by juror misconduct. We review the trial court’s determinations of witness credibility and historical fact for clear error and review de novo the trial court’s ultimate determination whether the defendant was prejudiced by juror misconduct.52 51 See, U.S. v. Kelley, 461 F.3d 817 (6th Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Rodriquez, 116 F.3d 1225 (8th Cir. 1997). 52 See, State v. Thorpe, 280 Neb. 11, 783 N.W.2d 749 (2010); State v. Podrazo, 21 Neb. App. 489, 840 N.W.2d 898 (2013). Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. STRICKLIN 569 Cite as 290 Neb. 542 [36,37] A criminal defendant claiming jury misconduct bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) the existence of jury misconduct and (2) that such misconduct was prejudicial to the extent that the defendant was denied a fair trial.53 In a criminal case, misconduct involving an improper communication between a nonjuror and a juror gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice which the State has the burden to overcome.54 The record establishes that the juror committed misconduct in communicating with his brother during deliberations. The juror testified that he called his brother during deliberations and discussed the status of his vote and the other jurors’ votes prior to the submission of the verdicts. This was clear misconduct. [38] However, we agree with the district court that Stricklin was not prejudiced by the extraneous information received by the juror during the telephone call to his brother. Whether prejudice resulted from jury misconduct must be resolved by the trial court’s drawing reasonable inferences as to the effect of the extraneous information on an average juror.55 The test to determine whether extraneous material was prejudicial looks to the possible effect of the extraneous material on an average juror’s deliberative process.56 The extraneous information received by the juror would not have affected an average juror’s deliberative process. The district court determined that the juror had testified credibly that his brother informed him only that his father and the defendants had a neutral acquaintance. The juror confirmed that his brother did not tell him that his father and Newman had a negative history or relationship or that his father and Newman had been involved in a physical altercation. We agree with the district court that such knowledge of a neutral family 53 Thorpe, supra note 52. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 State v. Harrison, 264 Neb. 727, 651 N.W.2d 571 (2002). Nebraska Advance Sheets 570 290 NEBRASKA REPORTS acquaintance would not motivate an average juror to change his vote from not guilty to guilty. Moreover, the jury was instructed to determine the facts based solely upon the evidence presented at trial and to disregard any personal knowledge. And the affidavit of the presiding juror established that no extraneous information was presented to the other jurors during deliberations. Based upon the nature of the extraneous information received by the juror, the limitation of that information to the juror, and the instruction to disregard personal knowledge, we conclude that the juror’s misconduct did not prejudice Stricklin and deprive him of a fair trial. Stricklin claims that in addition to communicating with a nonjuror, the juror committed misconduct in failing to reveal his family connection to the defendants prior to the submission of the verdicts. However, this claim similarly fails for lack of prejudice. As previously discussed, the district court determined that the juror had testified credibly that his brother revealed only a neutral family acquaintance with the defend­ ants. And the juror testified that he did not personally know the defendants and that he never knew who they were. Thus, assuming that the juror committed misconduct in failing to reveal his family connection, Stricklin failed to show that such a remote connection prevented the juror from being impartial. This assignment of error is without merit. 7. Withdrawal of R est Stricklin contends that the district court erred in overruling his motion to withdraw his rest and to submit additional evidence on the issue of juror misconduct. After the hearing on his motion for new trial, Stricklin sought to introduce an affidavit from the juror’s brother that provided: When [the juror] called me the first day of deliberations, it was clear that he knew that our family knows the Defendants. He wasn’t honest when he said at the Motion for New Trial that he didn’t really know the Defendants. He told me that he didn’t recognize them until he recognized people in the audience. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. STRICKLIN 571 Cite as 290 Neb. 542 The district court overruled the motion to withdraw rest and excluded the affidavit. On appeal, Stricklin contends that the relevant factors weighed in favor of reopening the evidence and receiving the affidavit. [39] Among factors traditionally considered in determining whether to allow a party to reopen a case to introduce additional evidence are (1) the reason for the failure to introduce the evidence, i.e., counsel’s inadvertence, a party’s calculated risk or tactic, or the court’s mistake; (2) the admissibility and materiality of the new evidence to the proponent’s case; (3) the diligence exercised by the requesting party in producing the evidence before his or her case closed; (4) the time or stage of the proceedings at which the motion is made; and (5) whether the new evidence would unfairly surprise or unfairly prejudice the opponent.57 The district court considered the above factors, and it determined that the defendants had not been diligent in offering the affidavit of the juror’s brother. The brother was known to the defendants prior to the hearing, but they did not produce his statements. And the district court further observed that receiving the affidavit would result in unfair surprise or unfair prejudice. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, the witnesses had been sequestered and, thus, they were not present for each other’s testimony. The brother’s affidavit “skirt[ed] the hearing’s sequestration order,” because it attempted to impeach the testimony given by the juror. If the brother had been present at the hearing, he would not have been allowed to hear and respond to the juror’s testimony. Based upon the district court’s analysis of the relevant factors, we see no abuse of discretion in the denial of Stricklin’s motion to withdraw his rest and to reopen the evidence. This assignment of error is without merit.