Opinion ID: 2598238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: alternate juror

Text: [¶ 7] McAdams first argues that his conviction should be reversed because the district court failed properly to discharge the alternate juror after the jury retired to consider its verdict, in violation of W.R.Cr.P. 24(e) and his federal and state constitutional rights to a fair trial. At trial, after the district court discovered that the alternate juror had been present in the jury room while the jury was deliberating, McAdams' counsel agreed that the alternate juror should be dismissed, but did not otherwise object to the alternate juror's presence during the jury's deliberations. Accordingly, the plain error standard of review applies, and McAdams must demonstrate on appeal that the record clearly shows an error that transgressed a clear and unequivocal rule of law which adversely affected a substantial right. Compton v. State, 931 P.2d 936, 939 (Wyo.1997). [¶ 8] The record clearly reflects what occurred at trial without resorting to speculation. The district court impaneled a jury of thirteen individuals, including one alternate juror. Following closing arguments, all thirteen jurors retired to the jury room to consider their verdict; the alternate juror was not discharged. After approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes, the district court met with counsel in chambers, and all agreed that the alternate juror should be discharged, but it does not appear from the record that the district court instructed the remaining jurors to disregard the alternate juror's input and begin their deliberations anew. Approximately one hour and eighteen minutes later (including the noon hour), [1] the jury informed the district court that it had reached a verdict. [¶ 9] By failing properly to discharge the alternate juror, the district court violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law. W.R.Cr.P. 24(e) provides, in pertinent part: The court may direct that not more than six jurors in addition to the regular jury be called and impaneled to sit as alternate jurors. Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who, prior to the time the jury retires to consider its verdict, become or are found to be unable or disqualified to perform their duties. Alternate jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, shall have the same qualifications, shall be subject to the same examination and challenges, shall take the same oath and shall have the same functions, powers, facilities and privileges as the regular jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a regular juror shall be discharged after the jury retires to consider its verdict. [¶ 10] What effect such a violation had on the jury's deliberations, and ultimately, its final verdict, is the key factor in evaluating whether the violation affected McAdams' substantial rights. In two recent decisions, Alcalde v. State, 2003 WY 99, ¶¶ 8-11, 74 P.3d 1253, 1257-59 (Wyo.2003) and Hoos v. State, 2003 WY 101, ¶¶ 10-17, ___ P.3d ___, ___, slip op. at 3-5 (Wyo.2003) (No. 00-224, published 8/26/03), we established an analytical framework for resolving this issue. We evaluate whether the alternate juror's presence in the jury room during the jury's deliberations prejudiced the defendant, and also whether the court acted or utilized sufficient procedural safeguards to obviate the danger of prejudice to the defendant. Alcalde, 2003 WY 99, ¶ 9, 74 P.3d at 1258. [¶ 11] The mere presence of an alternate juror during jury deliberations, without more, is not error per se and our ultimate inquiry is whether, by [the alternate juror's] presence, any participation occurred. Hoos, 2003 WY 101, ¶ 13, ___ P.3d at ___, slip op. at 4. Thirteen jurors, including the alternate juror, retired to consider a verdict in the instant case. Neither McAdams, nor his counsel, expressly consented to the alternate juror's presence during the jury's deliberations, and the district court had not previously instructed the alternate juror to remain a silent observer and not participate in the jury's deliberations; indeed, prior to discharging the alternate juror, no one informed the jurors on the record that a particular juror had been designated the alternate juror. After approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes, the district court discovered that it had not discharged the alternate juror. Because deliberations had actually commenced, participation either by words or gestures must be presumed to have occurred. Id. at ¶ 14, 75 P.3d at 669, slip op. at 5. [2] [¶ 12] The prejudice or its absence arising from an alternate [juror]'s participation during jury deliberations cannot be assessed and after a verdict has been rendered an attempt could not be made without impermissibly inquiring into the effect of the matter upon each juror's mind in violation of [W.R.E. 606(b) ]. Id. at ¶ 13, 75 P.3d at 668-669, slip op. at 5. The alternate juror's participation during the deliberations in the instant case therefore requires that we determine that prejudice is manifest and [appellant] has no obligation to show that he has been prejudiced by the error. Id. at ¶ 14, 75 P.3d at 669, slip op. at 5. [3] Further, the presumption of prejudice requires that the State show that the prejudicial influence of the alternate juror's participation in deliberations had no effect on the jury's final verdict. We have determined that, in some circumstances, adequate procedural safeguards or the trial court's curative action can overcome such prejudice and ensure that [appellant] received a fair trial. See Alcalde, 2003 WY 99, ¶ 10[, 74 P.3d 1253] (prejudice can be rebutted upon a showing that adequate procedural safeguards were undertaken, but case reversed because trial court did not utilize adequate procedural safeguards). Hoos, 2003 WY 101, ¶ 15, ___ P.3d at ___, slip op. at 5. [¶ 13] The record in the instant case does not reveal any curative action taken, or procedural safeguards utilized, by the district court upon discovering that it had failed properly to discharge the alternate juror. The prejudice to [appellant] posed by the alternate [juror]'s presumed participation required that upon discharging the alternate juror, the trial court should have instructed the remaining jurors to recommence deliberations anew and [should have inquired] whether they would be capable of disregarding their previous deliberations and any opinions formed during those deliberations. Alcalde, ¶ 9[, 74 P.3d 1253]. Only by these curative instructions and procedural safeguards can the State show the absence of prejudice regarding the jury's final verdict. The trial court's failure to inquire of the remaining jurors necessitates that we find that the State has not carried its burden of proving that the alternate [juror]'s participation had no prejudicial influence on the jury's deliberations and final verdict. Hoos, 2003 WY 101, ¶¶ 16-17, ___ P.3d at ___, slip op. at 5. Accordingly, we find that the alternate juror's participation during the jury's deliberations in the instant case affected the jury's final verdict, which necessarily implicated McAdams' right to a fair trial, the cardinal principle that the deliberations of the jury shall remain private and secret in every case, [4] and considering the particular facts of this case, affected his substantial rights.