AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Defendant was convicted of child abuse resulting in death. During jury deliberations, a juror privately approached the trial judge to report that another juror refused to accept the State's expert testimony and was unwilling to change her stance on the Defendant's innocence. The judge instructed the juror to report that the jury was hung and to "do whatever [you] have to do." Less than an hour later, the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of child abuse resulting in death (para 1).
• State v. Jojola, 2005-NMCA-119: The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that the judge's ex parte communication with the juror was improper and that the State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the communication (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the judge's communication with the juror was not improper and did not prejudice the Defendant. The State contended that the presumption of prejudice should not apply (para 12).
• Defendant: Asserted that the judge's ex parte communication with the juror violated Rule 5-610(D) NMRA, was improper, and related to the issues of the case. The Defendant argued that the communication created a presumption of prejudice, which the State failed to rebut (paras 1, 12).

Legal Issues

• Was the trial judge's ex parte communication with the juror improper under Rule 5-610(D) NMRA?
• Did the State rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the improper communication?

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to reverse the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial (para 13).

Reasons

Per Chávez J. (Bosson C.J., Minzner, Serna, and Maes JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the trial judge's ex parte communication with the juror was improper because it related to the issues of the case, specifically the jury's deliberations and the jurors' views on the evidence. This violated Rule 5-610(D) NMRA, which requires all communications between the judge and jury to occur in open court and in the presence of the Defendant unless waived (paras 1, 12).
• The Court emphasized that improper communications create a presumption of prejudice, which the State must rebut. In this case, the State failed to provide any evidence to overcome the presumption of prejudice (paras 12-13).
• The Court clarified the historical and procedural framework of Rule 5-610(D), distinguishing between communications related to the case and ministerial or housekeeping matters. It reiterated that all communications must be recorded and conducted transparently to avoid potential harm or misinterpretation (paras 3-10).
• The Court noted that the lack of a complete record of the judge's private conversation with the juror compounded the issue, as it left room for speculation about the juror's interpretation and its impact on the jury's deliberations (para 11).
• The Court concluded that the improper communication warranted reversal of the conviction and a new trial (para 13).