Opinion
Docket No. CR-19-489
10-31-2019
STATE OF MAINE v. CHRISTINE STILPHEN Defendant
STATE OF MAINE
CUMERLAND, ss. UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT
PORTLAND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Defendant was convicted of a second-offense OUI on October 10, 2019 after a one-day jury trial. She seeks a new trial on the ground that "the State's lead witness, Falmouth Police Officer Matthew Yeaton, impermissibly engaged in an out-of-court conversation with the jury foreperson." See Motion for New Trial filed October 17, 2019 at ¶ 3. Defendant concedes that the conversation did not relate to the substance of the trial (the officer and the juror, who had discovered that they had grown up in neighboring towns, were talking about Christmas lights), that the court conducted a voir dire of the foreperson, and that the "Defendant's lawyer decided to allow her to remain on the jury," but contends nonetheless that the court erred in allowing the juror to remain on the jury such that a new trial is warranted. See Motion at ¶ 10 (reasoning that the presumption of prejudice was not cured because Officer Yeaton initiated the impermissible contact and did not disclose it until he "was caught in the act").
In considering whether a juror has been tainted, the Law Court has reasoned: "[O]nce a juror has been exposed to potentially prejudicial extraneous information, the trial court must make appropriate inquiry to insure that the fairness of the trial has not been compromised. If the trial court finds a reasonable possibility of prejudice, a presumption arises that the verdict will be tainted; if he finds none, the matter is ended unless his determination was clear error." State v. Libby, 435 A.2d 1075, 1079 (Me. 1981) (internal citations omitted). While the Libby court addressed in-court extraneous information -- a reference during testimony to a previous trial involving Defendant - the same analysis applies to out-of-court exchanges involving a juror. See, e.g., State v. Prentiss, 557 A.2d 619, 621 (Me. 1989) (court's decision to retain juror who overheard news reporter reference defendant's escape prior to trial was not clearly erroneous where court questioned juror and juror stated that his judgment would not be affected).
Here, once the court became aware that an out-of-court conversation had occurred between the juror and Officer Yeaton, it conducted a voir dire of the juror and Defendant's counsel agreed that the juror should remain. The fact that the jury ultimately returned a verdict of guilty does not provide a basis for the court to determine that its decision to retain the juror with counsel's agreement was in error. Maine case-law, and cases from other jurisdictions involving similar fact-patterns, support the court's ruling that the foreperson's conversation with the officer does not require a new trial where the court inquired of the juror and where the conversation did not concern the case. See, e.g., State v. Holland, 364 S.E.2d 535 (W.Va. 1987) ("We do not think that the trial court in this case abused its discretion in failing to find that the defendant was injured by the fact that the trooper carried on a short conversation with several members of the jury, when the conversation did not in any manner relate to the defendant's case. Although this type of communication is neither condoned nor approved, the trial judge heard evidence relating to the conversation and found that no prejudice resulted therefrom. It was within the judge's discretion to make this decision and there is nothing to show that there was an abuse of that discretion".)
It is accordingly hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for a New Trial is DENIED. DATED: 31/10/19
/s/_________
Jed J. French
Judge Unified Criminal Court