Opinion ID: 1760644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror Loeffelholz's Conduct.

Text: By affidavit attached to the State's resistance to the new trial motion, juror Loeffelholz admitted relating the experience that her son was a victim of sexual abuse. Defendant argues trial court should have granted his motion for new trial because Loeffelholz was guilty of misconduct in relating this experience and in not disclosing the event on voir dire or on the jury questionnaire. At the threshold, we note the record contains neither a transcript of the voir dire examination nor any jury questionnaire. Generally, [i]t is defendant's obligation to provide this court with a record affirmatively disclosing the error relied upon. State v. Ludwig, 305 N.W.2d 511, 513 (Iowa 1981); accord State v. Mark, 286 N.W.2d 396, 402 (Iowa 1979); State v. Bakker, 262 N.W.2d 538, 544 (Iowa 1978). A defendant may waive error by failing to provide us with a record that affirmatively shows the basis of the alleged error. State v. Campbell, 294 N.W.2d 803, 811 (Iowa 1980). Defendant has not demonstrated Loeffelholz was asked any questions that would elicit the information about her son, either on the questionnaire or on voir dire. We find no error on this prong of his complaint. The second prong of the claimed Loeffelholz misconduct concerns her reference during jury deliberations to her son's sexual abuse. The State asserts this did not constitute prejudicial misconduct. In Rouse, 290 N.W.2d at 916-17, we said the discussions of the jurors, and their motivations and mental or emotional reactions inhered in the verdict and could not be utilized in an attack on it. Loeffelholz's comment arguably falls within this protective rule. Further, even if this communication were not protected by the above rule, there is insufficient indication of prejudice to cause us to conclude trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. We reached the same result in State v. Folck, 325 N.W.2d 368, 372-73 (Iowa 1982), where one juror supplied the jury with information concerning an alibi witness's residence, another made statements concerning a shelter referred to in the evidence, and still another said that patrons of a certain bar were not people to be believed. In State v. Lass, 228 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 1975), several jurors related personal observations of individuals experiencing hypoglycemia and diabetic attacks. We then wrote: Jurors undoubtedly discuss a variety of subjects in considering cases. As a practical matter, courts cannot be too strict on jury discussions or few verdicts could stand. The matters which jurors bring up and discuss in the privacy of their room largely inhere in their verdict. Trial courts have broad discretion in these matters. Id. at 771 (citations omitted). We find no error in trial court's failure to grant a new trial based on the alleged Loeffelholz misconduct.