Opinion ID: 2208616
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the court's error was harmless

Text: [¶ 14] A trial court's error in failing to reveal the existence or contents of a jury note to counsel does not require reversal if the error is harmless. E.g., United States v. Parent, 954 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir.1992); see 3A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 724, at 30 (2d ed.1982) (stating a rule that does not require a showing of prejudice to the defendant goes too far). We note, however, that courts differ in their approach to applying a harmless error analysis in the context of communications between the jury and the court during deliberations. [¶ 15] When evaluating whether a defendant suffered prejudice in this context, courts look to the nature of the jury's inquiry and the court's subsequent supplemental instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Coffman, 94 F.3d 330, 335-36 (7th Cir.1996) (observing the court's failure to inform counsel regarding the jury note, indicating impasse, before issuing a further instruction was harmless even though the instruction told the jury to keep deliberating); United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 915 (2d Cir.1988) (holding no prejudice to the defendant when the jury note informed the court one juror cannot work past 6:30, the court gave an ex parte response urging the jury to continue deliberating, and the jury returned a guilty verdict within twenty-five minutes). [¶ 16] Based on the facts of this case, regardless of whether the harmless error inquiry is conducted under the standard for constitutional deprivations, see State v. Burdick, 2001 ME 143, ¶ 29, 782 A.2d 319, 328 (stating the record must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error did not affect substantial rights or contribute to the verdict obtained), or the less stringent standard for the majority of trial errors, see State v. DeMass, 2000 ME 4, ¶ 17, 743 A.2d 233, 237 (holding error is harmless when it is highly probable that it did not affect the jury's verdict), the Superior Court's error does not require vacating the conviction. [¶ 17] First, the jury note was not a request for clarification of law or further substantive instructions. E.g., Parent, 954 F.2d at 24 (holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court responded ex parte to jury's request to visually review court's previous instruction on constructive possession). Rather, the note indicated that the jury had reached a relative standstill in deliberations and needed further instructions on how to proceed in such circumstances. Thus, because this note was not a substantive inquiry into fact or law, the court's partial disclosure made Tremblay less susceptible to prejudice. See Pennsylvania v. Bradley, 501 Pa. 25, 459 A.2d 733, 734 (1983) (noting that instructions on the law or the law's application to the facts often create a higher risk of prejudice than more incidental communications). [¶ 18] Second, the court disclosed the substance of the jury note to Tremblay and gave him an opportunity to suggest a response before issuing the supplemental instruction. Initially, we acknowledge that partial disclosure may not be sufficient to prevent a subsequent finding of prejudice to a defendant when the court issues a supplemental instruction urging a verdict. E.g., O'Rama, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d at 194 (holding the defendant was prejudiced when the court failed to read a portion of the jury note stating jury was split 6/6, told counsel the jury was experiencing continued disagreements, and subsequently issued a supplemental instruction urging a verdict). [¶ 19] Here, however, the court did not issue a deadlock busting instruction or otherwise urge the jury to return to the jury room to continue deliberating in the hope of reaching a verdict. Instead, the court instructed the jury to consult with one another to determine if further deliberations that evening or the following morning would be productive. The court asked the jury to notify the court of its decision before they began deliberating. This instruction was within the bounds of the court's discretion because the court had to determine that the jury was genuinely deadlocked before it could declare a mistrial based on manifest necessity. See Alexander, Maine Jury Instruction Manual § 8-6 at 15 (4th ed.2001). Moreover, Tremblay did not object to the court's supplemental charge after it was issued, and could have objected when the jury requested testimonial read backs because it was apparent that they had decided to continue deliberating in violation of the court's instructions. [¶ 20] Accordingly, on this record, the court's partial disclosure did not prejudice Tremblay and, therefore, the court's error was harmless.