Opinion ID: 1219381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jury Communication with Third Party

Text: Johnson contends that the trial court should have granted a mistrial or continuance when it was discovered that the mother of a witness for the State had spoken to a juror. Rather than conducting an examination of the jury members, the trial judge questioned Ms. Bass, the mother of a witness, about her contract with the jury. Ms. Bass stated that she told one of the jurors that she was real cold, but insisted that she did not discuss this case. The general rule is that the trial court is to determine whether any conversation between a jury member and a third party was prejudicial. In making this determination, it is not required that the trial judge question the juror. This decision is left to the discretion of the judge. A defendant in a criminal prosecution is constitutionally guaranteed a fair trial by an impartial jury, and in order to fully safeguard this protection, it is required that the jury render its verdict free from outside influence. Nevertheless, the more fact that some conversation occurs between a jurors and a witness for the State does not necessarily prejudice a defendant. The power to declare a mistrial is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and ought to be exercised with the greatest caution, only for plain and obvious causes. (Citations omitted.) State v. Carrington , 284 S.C. 610, 328 S.E. (2d) 119 (Ct. App. 1985). Under the facts of this cases, it is the opinion of this Court that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial. For the reasons discussed above, the lower court is AFFIRMED on the Batson and juror communication issues. The search warrant issue is REMANDED for a hearing. GREGORY, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.