Opinion ID: 1707145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the conduct of certain jurors in failing to disclose information requested on voir dire deprived the appellant of a fair trial?

Text: ¶ 30. Lewis' final contention is that the trial court should have granted a new trial, because two jurors (Andrew Lee and Jennifer Jacobs) [3] did not respond truthfully during voir dire. Lewis bases his argument on juror Ellen Pulliam's testimony at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. Pulliam testified that juror Andrew Lee approached her during guilt phase deliberations, and told her that Willie Woods regained consciousness at the hospital and identified Lewis as the attacker. Pulliam also stated that, during sentencing phase deliberations, juror Jennifer Jacobs commented that Lewis looked like someone who had raped her. ¶ 31. Lewis notes that, prior to jury selection, LaShun Young, a member of the venire, overheard someone in the courthouse say that whoever committed this crime should be executed. Young mentioned this during individual voir dire, but did not know whether the person making the comment was discussing the case sub judice. ¶ 32. Based on Young's comments, Lewis argues that someone was roaming the halls of the courthouse with the intention of influencing the jurors. Lewis notes that, during individual voir dire, juror Lee denied knowing anything about the case. However, according to juror Pulliam, Lee stated during deliberations that Willie Woods regained consciousness in the hospital and identified Lewis as the attacker. Lewis argues that, either Lee lied during individual voir dire, or someone from outside the jury approached Lee after the jury was empaneled. Lewis made this same argument to the trial judge at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, and it was met with skepticism: [BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: ... Now, either one of two things happened, Your Honor: Either that juror did not reveal to the Court that he had been approached in the hall with this information before jury selection or during jury selection, or somebody talked to that juror after the trial started. THE COURT: Or [the events related by juror Pulliam] didn't happen. [BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: Beg your pardon? THE COURT: Or it didn't happen. [BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY]: That's right. Or it didn't happen. ¶ 33. Furthermore, the record reflects that, after the jury was empaneled, and prior to the release of the rest of the venire, the trial judge asked the jury members if they had been approached by anyone with regard to the case. The jurors did not indicate that they had been approached. Therefore, Lewis' allegations on this pointat least prior to the seating of the juryare without merit. See Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 505 (Miss. 1997) (We must assume that jurors answer truthfully when polled, else the entire polling procedure is rendered pointless.) ¶ 34. Moreover, jurors generally may not impeach their own verdict by testifying about motives or influences affecting deliberations. However, jurors may testify about misconduct in their presence or about outside influences on the jury panel. Fairman v. State, 513 So.2d 910, 915-16 (Miss.1987). See also M.R.E. 606(b) (juror can only testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror). ¶ 35. Juror Pulliam did not testify that she witnessed misconduct, but she did testify that juror Lee made a comment that was not contained in the record. Assuming that Pulliam's testimony was proper, the question raised here is whether Lee's alleged comments demonstrated an outside influence on the jury, such that Lewis was denied a fair trial. In our system of justice, every person charged with a crime is entitled to receive a fair trial before an impartial jury of his peers. Miss. Const. art 3, § 26; U.S. Constitution amend. VI. A jury is to consider only the evidence developed at trial in determining its verdict. Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 57 (Miss.1985) ([A] jury's verdict must be based upon the evidence and not affected by extraneous influences.) Collins v. State, 701 So.2d 791, 794 (Miss. 1997) (holding that trial judge erred by sending law dictionary into jury room). ¶ 36. However, there must be sufficient proof of an alleged outside influence. See King v. State, 580 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Miss. 1991); Williamson, 512 So.2d at 882; Carter v. State, 493 So.2d 327, 329 (Miss.1986). In this case, the proof is very limited as to whether outside information was considered by the jury in rendering its decision. A mere possibility that [an improper] influence might have been used ... is not sufficient to justify setting aside this conviction. Pepper v. State, 200 Miss. 891, 27 So.2d 842, 843 (Miss.1946). ¶ 37. Moreover, the trial judge listened to Pulliam's testimony. He was obviously very skeptical. The trial judge who hears the witnesses live, observes their demeanor and in general smells the smoke of the battle is by his very position far better equipped to make findings of fact which will have the reliability that we need and desire. Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 955 (Miss. 1985). Trial judges are vested with much discretion in the conduct of judicial proceedings. Turner v. State, 220 So.2d 295, 297 (Miss.1969) ... We will look with favor upon the action of a trial judge in deciding whether a mistrial or new trial should be ordered on account of an unauthorized communication to a juror. His rulings on such matters will generally not be ground for reversal except in cases where there is an abuse of such discretion below. Witherspoon v. State, 441 So.2d 1363, 1364 (Miss.1983) (noting rule against jurors impeaching their own verdict). ¶ 38. The question of outside influences on a jury is obviously very serious. Robinson v. State, 662 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Miss.1995). However, [t]o hold that reversal upon these facts is required would be tantamount to saying that almost any trial could be aborted.... See Id. Therefore, this Court declines to do so on the evidence presented. ¶ 39. Lewis also argues that he is entitled to a new trial based on Pulliam's testimony that juror Jennifer Jacobs commented, during sentencing deliberations, that Lewis looked like someone who had raped her. The record reflects that Jacobs did not reveal that she had been the victim of a violent crime when asked during general voir dire. ¶ 40. As stated earlier, Lewis' argument assumes that juror Pulliam's testimony was proper evidence of alleged misconduct by Jacobs. See Fairman, 513 So.2d at 915-16 (Miss.1987). With regard to evidence that juror Jacobs remained silent during voir dire when asked if she had been a victim of a violent crime: Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381 (Miss.1978) is our seminal case. Odom holds that the failure to respond does not warrant this Court granting a defendant/appellant a new trial unless the question propounded to the juror was (1) relevant to the voir dire examination; (2) ... unambiguous; ... (3)... the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited... [and (4)] prejudice ... in selecting the jury could reasonably be inferred from the juror's failure to respond. 355 So.2d at 1383. Myers v. State, 565 So.2d 554, 558 (Miss.1990); Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 847 (Miss.1994). ¶ 41. However, assuming that the first three elements of the Odom were met, Lewis has not shown that he was prejudiced by Jacobs' failure to respond during voir dire. Moreover, even if Jacobs had disclosed that she had been raped, Lewis would not necessarily have been entitled to a challenge for cause. Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 791 (Miss.1997) (courts would be hard-pressed to find people in Hinds County these days who have not at one time or another been victims of crime). In addition, this case was about murder and robbery, not rape. ¶ 42. Therefore, it was within the trial judge's discretion as to whether Jacobs' behavior warranted a new trial. Myers, 565 So.2d at 558-59. Lewis has failed to demonstrate that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.