Opinion ID: 1423616
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Premature Deliberation by the Jury

Text: Appellants claim they were entitled to a mistrial because the jurors violated their oath pursuant to RCr 9.70. At the close of the evidence, the jury submitted a question stating that we would like to see Woodard give a sample of his signature. The trial court denied the request, but defense counsel raised a question with the court concerning what a note speaking in the plural and signed the jury might mean. The trial court then questioned the jury as to whether they had discussed the case. No one indicated that they had. The court further inquired as to who wrote the question. One juror stated that he had been elected temporary foreman and admitted that he had written the question and signed it for the jury, but that it had come from only one juror, who alone had asked that the question be submitted to the judge. He said that no other jurors said anything. He described the event as asking a question, not talking about it. The trial court carefully considered the situation, and made an apt analogy to the exposure the rest of the jury would get if the question had been asked in open court, and determined that the question alone was not prejudicial. Out of the presence of the jury, the court stated, Yesterday, when we broke, I was considering, and I have considered over the evening, the motion that the defendants made to declare a mistrial in this matter based upon what the juror statedand I think it was juror 104stated that, while in the jury room waiting for time to come back, while we were trying to get the instructions ready, whether they were going to be read or whether they were going to be carried over for today, the court got a message from the sheriff, which is of record here, which we considered. And they asked, basically, among themselves, something to the effect, we want to go home and we want to come back the next day. Then, this one individual, [juror] 104, was designated as the spokesperson as the jury for the whole. Then it is my understanding that, as he wrote that out [request to go home for the day], a lady juror said also, I want to see Richard [Woodard] write his signature. And what was written was, also we would like to see Richard write his signature. I inquired of all the jurors and they said the case was not discussed, et cetera, et cetera. The juror 104 said it [the case] was not discussed. He just wrote that down and he put we. And, well, naturally, the evidence had closed and there's no way. We couldn't do it anyway because Richard [Woodard] doesn't have to do a thing in this trial. He doesn't have to write his signature for anybody. So that was not going to be done and it would have been improper if I had granted it. So, that's past us. I had to compare a situation where if the lady raised her hand and asked the question in open court, which sometimes judges permit that, and she said, Judge, I'd like to have Richard sign his name for us. I would have said, Ma'am, I can't allow that to happen because the evidence is all in. There is no more evidence and its not proper procedure. So, that would be that, and I conclude that I would not discharge the jury or add a mistrial basis. So, I feel that what has taken place was much similar to this. And, for these reasons, and for that basic background, I'm not going to declare a mistrial. Accepting the jurors' indication that no discussion about the case occurred, the trial court did not grant a mistrial. This was not an abuse of the court's discretion.