Opinion ID: 853623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Bailiff's Response to Juror's Question

Text: Baxter alleges that his conviction must be reversed because of an alleged improper communication between the bailiff and jury. When an improper communication takes place between the bailiff and the jury, there [is] a presumption of harm to the defendant that the State must rebut to avoid reversal. Alexander v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1068, 1074 (Ind. 1983). Reversal may be avoided only if no harm or prejudice to the defendant results. See Randall v. State, 474 N.E.2d 76, 79 (Ind.1985) (When an irregularity such as this ... occurs harm will be presumed, and if the irregularity is not explained, a reversal of the judgment should follow. However, if an explanation for the alleged misconduct is offered, and if this Court is satisfied that no harm or prejudice resulted, then the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed.) (citations omitted). When the trial court has addressed the issue of improper communications, we do not reweigh its determinations as to the credibility of the witnesses. See Wilson v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1014, 1018 (Ind.1987). Because this is a factual determination, it is subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. See Butler v. State, 724 N.E.2d 600, 603-04 (Ind.2000). Baxter challenged this alleged error at his hearing on the motion to correct error. In an affidavit, one juror alleged that, after the jury had been deliberating six to seven hours, the bailiff was questioned regarding what would happen if the jury hung. Allegedly, the bailiff told jurors that [they] had not been there long enough and to not even think about that. This juror further stated that [t]he exchange did not affect the verdict as far as I was concerned. The bailiff testified at the hearing on the motion to correct error that he had not made this statement at all. The trial court found that the alleged comment was not made by the bailiff, and also concluded that, even if it had been made, there was no evidence that it had affected the verdict. The trial court's finding that no harm resulted to Baxter was not clearly erroneous.