Court Opinion

ID: 9785747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:19:22.309422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:32.826261
License: Public Domain

Judge RUSSEL
dissenting.
The majority concludes that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to declare a mistrial. I respectfully disagree.
The trial court took appropriate steps to determine whether Juror K and the remaining jurors could deliberate fairly. The court informed the jury that K's failure to appear was the result of "unforeseen matters ... relating to his personal life." It instructed the jurors not to discuss the matter "with anyone, including each other, until this case is over." And it asked each juror, in chambers, the following questions:
1. "Can you still be fair to each side of this case and decide this matter on the basis of the evidence presented at trial and the law the Court has given in its preliminary and final instructions of law which were read to the jury?"
*3072. "Are you able to treat each of the other 11 jurors as a full participant in the jury deliberation process and respect the views of each of the other 11 jurors?"
Each juror, including K, answered the court's questions in the affirmative. The court apparently found the jurors' answers to be sincere, and we are not in a position to second-guess this determination. Carrillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478, 487 (Colo.1999).
Unlike the majority, I do not think that the situation was so inherently prejudicial that we must view the court's ruling as an abuse of discretion. See People v. Abbott, 690 P.2d 1263, 1269 (Colo.1984) (denial of mistrial will not be disturbed on appeal absent gross abuse of discretion and prejudice to the defendant). I do not doubt that Juror K felt discomfort and anxiety after hearing the court's remarks. But I think a juror in K's position could set aside such concerns to focus on the task of deliberating, and I trust the trial court's evaluation of K's assurances.
Because I think the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial, I would address defendant's remaining contentions. I conclude that these contentions are without merit and would therefore affirm the judgment of conviction.