Opinion ID: 2514440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Mistrial based on jury misconduct

Text: A jury's failure to follow a district court's instruction is intrinsic juror misconduct. [22] When the district court denies a motion for a mistrial based on such misconduct, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. [23] [A] new trial must be granted unless it appears, beyond a reasonable doubt, that no prejudice has resulted from the jury misconduct. [24] The defendant must prove the nature of the jury misconduct and that there is a reasonable possibility that the misconduct affected the verdict. [25] The defendant may only prove the misconduct using objective facts and not the state of mind or deliberative process of the jury. [26] In this case, the jury committed misconduct by failing to follow the oral bifurcation instruction, which the court and prosecutor gave during jury selection, and the district court's written response to the jury's question about penalty deliberations. The jury foreperson's statement that the jury had decided Valdez's sentence was objective evidence of the misconduct. [27] Thus, the jury's actions constituted intrinsic jury misconduct. There is a reasonable probability that the misconduct affected the verdict because the jury considered the penalty while deliberating Valdez's guilt. [28] In particular, the jury may have compromised, selecting the guilty verdict to impose the desired penalty. While the State argues that Valdez could not have been prejudiced because he stipulated to the sentence on the murder conviction, this argument fails to address the prejudice Valdez sustained in the jury's determination of his guilt or innocence. In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the juror misconduct affected the verdict, the district court must consider many factors including the timing of the misconduct, whether it involved a collateral or material issue, whether the information was admissible, and its influence in light of the entire trial. [29] In this case, the timing was critical. The jury prematurely deliberated Valdez's sentence while it was determining his guilt. This conduct violated Valdez's constitutional rights. Any discussion of Valdez's penalty was material to the penalty phase only and not to the guilt phase. Because of the possibility that the jury decided Valdez's guilt by choosing its desired sentence, rather than based on the evidence, there is a reasonable probability that the jury's deliberation of Valdez's sentence while deliberating his guilt affected the verdict. The State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not cause Valdez prejudice. Finally, the improper deliberations likely influenced Valdez to forgo a penalty hearing. Valdez knew that the jury found him guilty of a capital crime, but he did not know which sentence it had reached. This may have caused Valdez to fear the jury had decided on a sentence of death. The jury had not been instructed regarding sentencing. Therefore, the only sentence of which the jury would have been aware was the death penalty because it was discussed during jury selection. Thus, Valdez's stipulation to two life sentences is not surprising given that the jury misconduct could have cost him his life. Had Valdez chosen to proceed to the penalty phase, the jury misconduct may have put the burden on him to persuade the jurors to change their premature decision to sentence him to death. [30] This denied Valdez both an impartial jury to determine his guilt and an impartial jury during sentencing. The jury was not instructed regarding a sentencing range, aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances, or the process of weighing such circumstances. Therefore, even if the oral comments during jury selection were sufficient as a bifurcation instruction, which they were not, they were not adequate as sentencing instructions. Thus, the jury's deciding a sentence with no instructions at all was prejudicial. [31] Because the jury misconduct violated Valdez's Eighth and Sixth Amendment rights and the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial, we conclude that the jury misconduct warrants reversal.