Court Opinion

ID: 9560143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:43:54.0176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:12.784332
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice ROVIRA
dissenting:
Because the majority opinion undercuts the well established rule that jurors are presumed to follow a trial court’s instructions, and overrules a recent decision of this court on the premise that a newspaper article “could have come to the attention of a juror inadvertently,” maj. op. at 82, I respectfully dissent.
I
The petitioner was convicted of sexual assault on a child following a jury trial. Pertinent to the issues here, after the jury was selected and sworn the trial court declared a recess for the day and gave the jury a number of admonitions, including:
Fourth, do not attempt to gather any information on your own. Do not engage in any outside reading on this case, and do not attempt to visit any places mentioned in the case.
Finally [sic], do not in any other way try to learn about the case outside the courtroom.
Fifth, do not read about the case in the newspapers or listen to radio or television broadcasts about the trial. You must base your verdicts solely on the evidence presented at trial.
The next day, February 10, 1988, before a recess, the trial court reminded the jury to follow the admonitions given, and again before excusing the jury for the evening, reminded them not to discuss the case. That evening, the local newspaper ran a short article about the trial on an inside page of the paper. See maj. op. at 79.
Upon the reconvening of court on February 11, defense counsel brought the article to the attention of the court and requested that the jury be questioned to determine whether any juror had read the article. The trial court declined, ruling that no poll was warranted absent some showing that one or more jurors had read the article.
The jury found the defendant guilty. In post-trial proceedings no effort was made by the defendant to establish that any juror had read the newspaper article. However, on appeal the defendant claimed that the trial court’s refusal to question the jury about the article was reversible error.
The court of appeals, relying on People v. Holmes, 191 Colo. 477, 553 P.2d 786 (1976), affirmed, holding that it is presumed that the jurors followed the trial court’s instructions not to read newspaper articles concerning the trial, and there was no showing by the defendant that any of the jurors read the article, or that he was prejudiced by the article. People v. Harper, 796 P.2d 4 (Colo.App.1989).
II
In People v. Holmes, the trial court admonished the jury not to discuss trial matters, to ignore newspaper articles concerning the trial, and to refrain from listening to newscasts on radio or television. A newspaper article concerning the trial was published during the overnight recess. After reconvening, the trial court refused defendant’s motion to poll the jury in order to determine whether any jurors had read the article. In affirming the trial court’s ruling, we adhered to the rule of law as expressed in Hammons v. People, 153 Colo. 193, 385 P.2d 592 (1963), that absent a showing to the contrary, it is presumed that jurors followed the trial court’s instructions. Further, in the absence of any showing that the jurors had read the article, the defendant’s motion to poll the jury was based upon “unsupported speculation” that some juror might have done so and might have been prejudiced. Holmes, 191 Colo. at 481, 553 P.2d at 789.
This court in Holmes established a rebut-table presumption test. If the jury has been instructed not to read newspapers, there is a presumption that the jurors followed the instruction, and the burden is on the defendant to rebut the presumption. *88Colorado is not alone in adhering to such a presumption. It is presumed that jurors are “true to their oath and ... conscientiously observe the instructions and admonitions of the Court.” United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373, 381 (10th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 908, 107 S.Ct. 1353, 94 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). In Greschner, the jury was repeatedly admonished to not read any newspaper reports about the case and, applying a presumption of jury compliance with instructions test, the court refused defendant’s motion for mistrial made five days after a newspaper article appeared. See also United States v. Metzger, 778 F.2d 1195, 1209 (6th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 906, 106 S.Ct. 3279, 91 L.Ed.2d 568 (1986) (even if material presented in the news media is found to be prejudicial to defendant, unless there is a showing that the jury violated the instruction not to read newspaper accounts of the case, a presumption exists that the jury followed instructions and the conviction will not be reversed); Rizzo v. United States, 304 F.2d 810, 815 (8th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Nafie v. United States, 371 U.S. 890, 83 S.Ct. 188, 9 L.Ed.2d 123 (1962), quoted in United States v. Giacalone, 574 F.2d 328, 335 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 834, 99 S.Ct. 114, 58 L.Ed.2d 129 (1978) (“Where a jury has been clearly admonished not to read newspaper accounts of the trial in which they are serving as jurors, it is not to be presumed that they violated that admonition.”); State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 42, 46, 468 P.2d 74, 77 (1970) (“In the absence of evidence to the contrary this court will assume the jury followed the lower court’s admonitions.”).
The meritorious effect of the rebuttable presumption test is that it forecloses any assumption of noncompliance to instructions, inadvertently or otherwise. Whether a juror actively or inadvertently disobeys a jury instruction is irrelevant in the application of this test. The presumption is rebut-table and the moving party, upon presenting some evidence that a violation of the instructions occurred, would then be enti-tied to have the court poll the jury, regardless of whether the violation happened actively or passively.
Other jurisdictions have held that upon a colorable showing by extrinsic evidence or colorable claim of misconduct, impropriety by jurors must be investigated. United States v. Rowe, 906 F.2d 654, 655 (11th Cir.1990); United States v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230, 258 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 139, 112 L.Ed.2d 106 (1990). In this case, Harper presented nothing to the court to indicate that any juror was exposed to the relatively obscure newspaper article.
By requiring an investigation or polling on possible misconduct anytime it is alleged that media coverage could have come to the attention of a juror, the majority would require the trial court to poll the jury on far more occasions than would be warranted. Consequently, whenever a jury is not sequestered, the integrity of the jury would be undermined because, taken to its limit, jurors could be subjected to frequent interrogation regarding their activities during their time away from the courthouse. This may be offensive to jurors and, worse yet, they may be tempted by the subject matter of the questioning which would draw attention to potentially prejudicial outside influences. See State v. Bentley Bootery, Inc., 128 N.J.L. 555, 27 A.2d 620, aff'd, 129 N.J.L. 386, 30 A.2d 27 (1943).
Ill
It is true that counsel is prohibited from questioning jurors during trial and the majority finds that this prohibition hampers defendant’s ability to procure independent evidence of exposure to outside sources in order to overcome the Holmes presumption. See DR 7-108(B), (F) set out in maj. op. at 82. Other channels exist for gathering of such evidence.1
For example, in the cases cited by the majority for the proposition that admonishments may not be enough to protect *89against inadvertent exposure, some evidence was presented to show that the jury might have been inadvertently exposed to the media report. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 908 F.2d 648, 652 (10th Cir. 1990) (where prejudicial article appeared in business section of local paper, jury should have been polled despite admonishments because counsel presented evidence that certain jurors were seen reading business section of the newspaper that published article on a different day and also seen reading national business newspaper and these jurors were likely to have read local paper’s business section on day prejudicial article appeared); Mares v. United States, 383 F.2d 805 (10th Cir.1967), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 963, 89 S.Ct. 1314, 22 L.Ed.2d 564 (1969) (newspaper article appeared under bold headline).
Some jurisdictions determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion on whether to investigate potential juror misconduct based on a continuum considering the extensiveness of the media coverage of the case. Where the moving party offers evidence of broad coverage by the media, courts often find that the jury was inadvertently exposed. See United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072, 1092 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 896,108 S.Ct. 228, 98 L.Ed.2d 187 (1987); United States v. Trapnell, 638 F.2d 1016, 1023 (7th Cir.1980). See also United States v. Gaggi, 811 F.2d 47, 52 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 929, 107 S.Ct. 3214, 96 L.Ed.2d 701 (1987) (court held jury should be polled because case involved a notorious murder trial in New York City and there was extensive media coverage following the murder of the defendant by every newspaper, radio and television station in New York City); United States v. Trapnell, 638 F.2d at 1022 (admonishments held insufficient where two of the local papers and a local radio news report in a small town reported on the case); United States v. Williams, 809 F.2d 1072 (the court should have granted voir dire of the jury when one newspaper carried front page headlines, the other daily ran a story on page 27, and the local television and radio stations reported on the story). In all of these cases, more evidence for believing inadvertent juror misconduct occurred was presented to the court than here where defendant simply cited the existence of a short article on the inside page of a local paper in his motion to poll the jury.
The prohibition against juror-counsel contact during trial does not bar a remedy for a defendant who believes that the jury might have been exposed to prejudicial outside information. CRE 606(b) permits juror testimony about whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the juror’s attention.2 CRE 606(b) applies after the verdict is entered but allows an aggrieved defendant an opportunity to move for a new trial based on juror misconduct. C.R.C.P. 59(d)(2). While it is improper to inquire into a juror’s actual mental processes, CRE 606(b) does allow a party an opportunity to provide the court with evidence of extraneous influence in an effort to overcome the Holmes presumption.
There was no indication, either mid or post-trial, that any juror had read or been influenced by the newspaper article mentioning Harper’s prior conviction. No post-trial motion was made by Harper alleging any juror misconduct.3 The mere presence of any media coverage which could entice juror misconduct is insufficient ground for diversion from the presumption set forth in Holmes. The trial court is afforded the discretion to determine whether a sufficient showing has been made to necessitate questioning by the court on whether juror exposure actually transpired. Pure conjecture that jurors might inadvertently violate admonitions not to read outside newspaper articles is insufficient to require court ex-*90animation of the jurors. See People v. Green, 323 Mich. 128, 35 N.W.2d 142 (1948).
The Holmes presumption is sufficient to permit the trial court to deny a request to question the jury unless the court has reason to believe that such inquiry would be fruitful. See United States v. Pallais, 921 F.2d 684, 686 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Thornton, 746 F.2d 39, 50 (D.C.Cir.1984) (holding that trial court not required to conduct a voir dire on counsel’s unsubstantiated suspicion where issue was whether jurors had overheard any part of a bench conversation).
IV
The majority finds that the reasonable possibility of prejudice test of Wiser v. People, 732 P.2d 1139 (Colo.1987), is not the appropriate standard to apply in this case because that test applies to post-trial challenges. It then finds that the rationale of Wiser, recognizing the difficulty of obtaining proof of jury prejudice, undercuts the analysis of Holmes. Maj. op. at 82. I agree that Wiser does not apply but do not agree that Wiser undercuts Holmes. The tests articulated in these two cases both address juror misconduct but they apply to different stages of the process. The Holmes presumption is pertinent in determining whether the jury was, in fact, exposed to extraneous influences; Wiser tests whether such influences affected jury deliberations. The test in Wiser is not triggered until the presumption in Holmes has been successfully rebutted.
V
The three-part test adopted by the majority has merit once the presumption of Holmes has been successfully rebutted and the trial court is satisfied that juror misconduct might have or likely occurred. However, to begin the analysis by a determination of the prejudicial nature of the media event assumes that if a potentially prejudicial news report appeared, the jury should be polled on whether they failed to heed their admonishments. In the present case, Holmes provides the correct standard to determine whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to poll. I would uphold the ruling of the trial court and affirm the conviction.
I am authorized to state that Justice VOLLACK joins in this dissent.

. See, e.g., United States v. Rowe, 906 F.2d 654 (11th Cir.1990) (judge’s chambers received anonymous call from a man claiming to be a juror and volunteering that he had overheard a discussion which was potentially prejudicial between other jurors in the jury room).

. The pertinent section of CRE 606(b) states: Upon inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, ... a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jurors’ attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror.

. Defendant did file a motion for new trial but based the motion solely on newly discovered evidence not related to any juror conduct.