Court Opinion

ID: 9667866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:43.477779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.392559
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I would reverse for these reasons:
1. The whole business of extraneous influence on the jury was dealt with in a perfunctory manner; the hearing transcript covers 14 pages. The ruling of the trial court was without findings of fact or conclusions of law. Two affidavits were submitted but neither was the subject of a ruling by the trial judge. The majority has stated that the affidavit of Ms. Haase, the secretary, ought to be stricken, perhaps so; but it was neither stricken nor admitted below and I don’t think we can prescind from its consideration here. The only exhibit entered on this issue was the anonymous letter which opened this Pandora’s box:
"Mr. N. Beauchamp. I was at the Hagle trial on Friday, March 29th. One of the jury was hired to board up the house on Tenth Street, Tom’s [defendant’s] home. He talked with at least one neighbor. A juror said the guy told about it in the jury room. That was not legal. He sat the back row near right end. Citizen voter. It was not a fair shake. Is a mistrial. Please check by police.”
2. Taking the affidavit of juror Johnston together with the anonymous letter, one could surmise that the revelations had some notable impact on the jury.
3. If secretary Haase’s affidavit is correct, and *619the revelations included a characterization of defendant’s residence as a "dope den”, the verdict should have been summarily set aside and a new trial granted.
4. If the revelations included a statement that the neighbors were frightened of the goings on at the residence (as attributed to juror Beatrice Stiles) that alone would require careful consideration, and at the very least a finding as to why it would not be considered prejudicial.
5. According to the official transcript the jury was instructed:
"However if you have personal knowledge of any particular fact in this case, such knowledge may be used as evidence.”
Attached to the appellee’s brief is an affidavit of court reporter dated May 20, 1975 in support of an order amending the transcript dated May 27, 1975 interjecting the adverb "not”. These documents so far as I can determine, were not noticed for hearing and were not docketed. Coming as they do, after the affidavits of juror Johnston and secretary Haase and the hearing on the motion for new trial, I find them irregular.
6. This was a close case. The jury requested the re-reading of considerable portions of the testimony and copies of the court’s instructions concerning circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt. All requests were complied with and here there was no irregularity. I mention this aspect only to show that there was indeed debate occurring in the jury room.
The sum total of these irregularities appears to have denied defendant the full measure of due process. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.