Court Opinion

ID: 9569625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:15:50.238326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:39.951987
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
dissenting in part: I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion reversing the conviction by virtue of the newspaper article read by a juror.
The juror was thoroughly questioned by the court as well as defense counsel as to the impact of the newspaper article. The trial court saw and heard the juror and concluded the juror was not tainted and a mistrial was not warranted. The majority herein, relying solely on a cold record, finds error in such determination.
Although not commented upon in the majority opinion, defense counsel, during the hearing relative to the jurors, revealed it was his trial strategy to introduce evidence the defendant was on parole at the time the crimes were committed. Such evidence was in fact introduced by the defendant and such introduction was in no way related to the juror’s reading of the article. Any person of ordinary intelligence and experience knows that an individual on parole has committed a crime. So, with or without the article, the jury was free to speculate on what crime or crimes the defendant might have been previously convicted. Additionally, the newspaper article convictions were rather old — 1962 and 1968. Their age is certainly less prejudicial to defendant than crimes of more recent vintage. The jury could infer defendant had learned his lesson and thereby give credence to defendant’s contention he was attempting to prevent the crimes.
Under the unique circumstances herein, I would conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial or new trial. I would affirm the conviction.