Opinion ID: 853872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ex Parte Communication to the Jury

Text: The defendant argues that the post-conviction court erred regarding his claim that a bailiff improperly communicated to the jury during deliberations. The post-conviction court concluded that no improper communication took place between the jury and any member of the court staff during deliberations and that there is no reason to conclude that normal court practices regarding juror communication would not have been followed in this case. P.C.R. Record at 325. [1] The defendant's claim does not concern the content of the alleged communication, but rather the fact that it transpired outside the presence of, and without notice to, him or his counsel. Even though most of the jurors called at the post-conviction hearing testified that the communication occurred during the deliberation, one juror testified that it occurred after deliberation. The post-conviction court specifically found that this juror was the most sure of the timing. Furthermore, two bailiffs testified that they follow a standard procedure for jury questions, which includes having the jury submit the question in writing and then putting the written question in the file. In this case, the bailiffs did not recall the occurrence of such procedure and thus concluded that no communication took place. Applying our standard of review in an appeal from a negative judgment in post-conviction proceedings, we determine that the evidence does not lead unmistakably and unerringly to a conclusion contrary to the post-conviction court's decision.