Court Opinion

ID: 9709153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:41:27.812931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.393720
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
I dissent from that part of the opinion which holds that under the evidence in this case prejudice or lack of prejudice can be determined only by inference and speculation. It seems to me that this *840amounts to an application of the prejudice per se rule rather than the mere presumption of prejudice rule which the court declares is the applicable rule.
The trial court held a full, fair, and complete hearing on the petition of the defendant at which he was represented by able counsel. All of the jurors were examined during the hearing. At the conclusion of 2 days of testimony the trial court found that the contacts between the sheriff and the jury did not affect the verdict and were not prejudicial to the defendant. This court now finds as a matter of law that the record does not support the decision of the trial court.
The sheriff’s testimony for the most part related to factual matters which he had observed and was not disputed or contradicted. It was to some extent cumulative. There is no contention that the sheriff at any time discussed the case then being tried with any of the jurors. None of the contacts occurred after the case had been submitted to the jury. I am unable to say that the decision of the trial court was clearly wrong.