Opinion ID: 2588202
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Juror misconduct: buying a gift for the murder victim's daughter

Text: Hernandez contends that a mistrial should have been granted because of juror misconduct. The following facts are pertinent. The jurors returned guilty verdicts on a Friday, and the district court excused the jurors until the next Tuesday, when the penalty phase was to begin. As required by NRS 175.401, the court admonished them in the meantime not to talk among themselves or with anyone else on any subject related to the trial; not to read, watch, or listen to any report or commentary pertaining to the trial; and not to form or express any opinion on any subject connected with the trial. Penalty deliberations began on Wednesday afternoon. At that time the district court informed the parties that the bailiff had learned that three jurors had bought a present for Ana and the court had instructed the bailiff to tell the jurors to set the present aside to be dealt with later. The court decided to wait until after a verdict was returned before it questioned the three jurors whether they discussed the case or any facts of the case or discussed potential punishment or anything that jurors are precluded from discussing, when they made the decision to purchase a present for the child. After the jury returned a death sentence on Thursday, the court excused all but two jurors, and the following colloquy occurred. The Court: Thank you. Miss Lorren and Miss Almond, I understand that the two of you along with one of the alternates who is not with ... us anymore, purchased a gift for the minor child, Ana Hernandez, and if you have that, you may certainly give that either to the grandmother or to the district attorney to transfer to the grandmother. However, we do have to know, because we give you this admonishment that you can't talk to each other, you can't discuss the trial or any of the facts, etc., etc., I do have to ask you how it was that you decided ... to go together to purchase a present for the child. Juror Lorren: The day that we were here all day on Friday, we were walking out, and I think it was Amber that said I wish we can get something for Ana. I said, why don't we do that, and we took Traci [Almond] because she has a little girl too about the same age. We just got the sizes of clothes. We didn't talk about the trial at all. .... The Court: [Miss Almond, is] that your recollection of how that happened, and you tell us that you did not discuss the trial at all? Juror [Almond]: No. We basically discussed what would fit her and what we thought was cute. Defense counsel also questioned the two jurors and then moved for a mistrial, which the court denied. Hernandez contends that the jurors violated the admonition not to talk about the case. He also contends that the presence of the gift in the jury room during deliberations was prejudicial error. It is a generally accepted principle of trial administration that jurors must not engage in discussions of a case before they have heard both the evidence and the court's legal instructions and have begun formally deliberating as a collective body. [1] The record does not support appellant's claim that the jurors discussed the case prematurely. Hernandez asserts that discussing the child of the victim necessarily constituted a discussion about the case, but based on the jurors' testimony, we do not agree. Even if the jurors' behavior was misconduct, not every incidence of juror misconduct requires a new trial. [2] If it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no prejudice occurred, a new trial is unnecessary. [3] The question of prejudice is a factual one for the district court, and this court will not reverse absent an abuse of discretion. [4] Intra-jury discussions are far less of a threat to a defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury than are extra-jury influences. [5] Here, the facts do not establish prejudice but merely demonstrate that the jury was sympathetic to an innocent child, who was a collateral victim of the murder. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that the record indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that no prejudice occurred. [6] Further, we conclude that Hernandez fails to show that the presence of the gift constituted plain error or affected his substantial rights. [7]