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 burglary, larceny (over $100), and criminal damage to property (under $1000) after allegedly breaking into a house, stealing money and pills, and causing property damage. The case involved testimony from a minor and a mentally challenged individual, whose competency to testify was challenged by the Defendant.
Procedural History
- District Court, Curry County: The Defendant was convicted of burglary, larceny, and criminal damage to property.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the trial court erred by not excusing a juror or declaring a mistrial after a juror learned of a burglary at his own home and shared this information with another juror. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that a juror failed to disclose prior knowledge of the Defendant and his criminal history during voir dire. The Defendant also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly the testimony of a minor and a mentally challenged individual, and argued that the mentally challenged individual should not have been allowed to testify.
- Appellee (State): Contended that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and the motion for a new trial. The State argued that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the convictions and that the witnesses were competent to testify.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for mistrial based on alleged juror bias and misconduct.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of juror taint.
- Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the Defendant’s convictions.
- Whether the trial court erred in allowing testimony from a minor and a mentally challenged individual.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant’s convictions on all issues.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Sutin and Robles JJ. concurring):
-
Juror Bias and Mistrial: The Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the motion for mistrial. The excused juror’s comment about his own burglary did not constitute "extraneous information" as it was unrelated to the Defendant’s case and did not unfairly influence the jury’s deliberative process. The juror in question, Medrow, assured the court that the information would not affect his impartiality, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.
-
Juror Taint and New Trial: The Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion for a new trial. The evidence presented, including testimony from the juror and other witnesses, supported the finding that the juror did not recall the Defendant or have prior knowledge of his criminal history. The jury foreperson also confirmed that no discussions of prior offenses occurred during deliberations.
-
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The offense report and testimony established the elements of burglary, larceny, and criminal damage to property. The Defendant’s memorandum did not refute the presumption that the evidence supported the convictions.
-
Competency of Witnesses: The Court found no abuse of discretion in allowing testimony from the minor and the mentally challenged individual. Both witnesses demonstrated an understanding of the difference between truth and lying, and their testimony was coherent and responsive. The trial court conducted appropriate inquiries into their competency.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions on all issues.