Opinion ID: 2542749
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether a mistrial should have been declared in light of juror misconduct.

Text: ¶ 12. Moore asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte granted a mistrial because juror Sarah Wade was related to potential witness Dewan McGee and had traveled to the courthouse with him. Moore asserts that Wade did not acknowledge this during voir dire. However, Moore's assertion mischaracterizes what occurred. During voir dire by the State, the following exchange occurred: Q. Dewan Magee, who lives on Wade Road? Anybody know Mr. Magee? Mr. Newman? Okay, Mr. Newman and Ms. Wade. Anything about, Ms. Wade, anything about your knowledge of Mr. Magee, if he was called as a witness, you could not be fair and impartial? A. No. ¶ 13. Wade was never asked whether she was related to Magee. Further, Moore's counsel did not follow up on Wade's response during the State's voir dire that she knew Magee. More importantly, Moore's counsel did not object to Wade being seated on the jury. During the State's case-in-chief, Moore's counsel then provided the trial court information that Wade and Magee had ridden to court together because Magee did not have transportation. The trial court then held a conference with Wade in which Wade reiterated that nobody had asked if she was related to Magee, but that she had informed the State that she knew him. Wade also explicitly stated that she had never discussed the case with Magee. Moore's counsel later informed the trial court that she had heard through a relative of Moore that Wade and another juror knew McChriston's family. The trial court ultimately removed Wade because of the possible appearance of impropriety of her riding with Magee. Moore's counsel did not move for a mistrial on this ground. ¶ 14. In Gladney v. Clarksdale Beverage Co., 625 So.2d 407, 418-19 (Miss.1993), this Court said: Once an allegation of juror misconduct arises, then the next step is to consider whether an investigation is warranted. In order for the duty to investigate to arise, the party contending there is misconduct must make an adequate showing to overcome the presumption in this state of jury impartiality. Juror polling shall only be permitted by an attorney, outside the supervision of the court, upon written request. At the very minimum, it must be shown that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that good cause exists to believe that there was in fact an improper outside influence or extraneous prejudicial information. Gladney v. Clarksdale Beverage Co., 625 So.2d 407, 418-19 (Miss.1993). Further, the Uniform Rules of Circuit and County Court Practice, Rule 3.12 allows the judge to declare a mistrial only when the harm done would render the defendant without hope of receiving a fair trial. Reed v. State, 764 So.2d 511, 513 (Miss.2000) (quoting Roundtree v. State, 568 So.2d 1173, 1178 (Miss.1990)). ¶ 15. Moore's counsel failed to inquire during voir dire into Wade's relationship with Magee. Moore's counsel failed to object to Wade being seated on the jury. Moore's counsel failed to inform the trial court of any relationship between Wade and Magee until the trial had already begun. Moore's counsel failed to move for a mistrial. The trial court thoroughly investigated the allegations and found that there had been no inappropriate communication. The trial court removed Wade prior to any deliberations to avoid the appearance of any impropriety. Further, Magee indicated he did not know anything about the case, and he did not testify. Moore has failed to establish that good cause exists to believe that improper outside influence occurred or prejudicial information was exchanged. Accordingly, we find that this issue is without merit.