Court Opinion

ID: 9538548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:37:39.506227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:58.445627
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OF
WAKATSUKI, J.
I concur with the opinion, but write this separate concurrence to clarify what the proper inquiry should be when there has been a showing that extraneous material had been exposed to the jury.
The opinion correctly states that there is a rebuttable presumption of prejudice when it is discovered that extraneous matters had been interjected into the jury deliberation process. However, to rebut the presumption, the proper inquiry is of a very limited nature.
Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) 606(b) provides:
Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify concerning the effect of anything *479upon the juror’s or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror’s mental processes in connection therewith. Nor may the juror’s affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror indicating an effect of this kind be received.
In State v. LaRue, 68 Haw. 575, 722 P.2d 1039 (1986), the jury foreperson in a rape and sexual abuse case revealed to the other jurors that she had been molested as a child. This court stated:
Under HRE Rule 606(b), we cannot consider the jurors’ testimony as to the effect of the improper statement upon them. We can only consider whether such a statement was made (which is undisputed), and whether, given that statement, we can say that appellant had a trial before an impartial jury.
Id. at 579, 722 P.2d at 1042-43.
The jury foreman in Lopez v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 70 Haw. 562, 777 P.2d 715 (1989), conducted his own investigation of the case and reported his conclusions to the other jurors. We held that this created a presumption of prejudice, but that the litigants and the trial court were “foreclosed from asking the jurors whether the foreman’s investigations and his comments thereon influenced their decisionf.]” Id. at 564, 777 P.2d at 716.
Here, the only proper inquiry would have been whether the dolls and calculator were in fact used and for what purpose. If they had been used and their use could have in any manner influenced the outcome of the case, then the presumption of prejudice cannot be rebutted by inquiries as to whether and how their use influenced the jurors’ thinking.