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 vehicular homicide after a jury trial. During the trial, the jury was not sworn in, a fact that was discovered by the Defendant but not raised until after the jury returned its verdict and was discharged. The trial court subsequently reassembled the jury, administered the oath retroactively, and had the jurors affirm that they had understood and followed the oath during the trial (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court, October 1995: The Defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion to set aside the verdict due to the jury not being sworn during the trial (paras 1-2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the failure to swear in the jury during the trial constituted a fundamental error that invalidated the verdict. The Defendant contended that the retroactive administration of the oath after the verdict was insufficient to cure the error (paras 2, 7-8).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the error was harmless and did not prejudice the Defendant, as the jurors were instructed on their duties and responsibilities during the trial, which effectively conveyed the substance of the juror's oath (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the failure to swear in the jury during the trial constituted a fundamental error that invalidated the verdict.
• Whether the retroactive administration of the juror's oath after the verdict was sufficient to cure the error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial (para 11).

Reasons

Per Bosson J. (Donnelly and Wechsler JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the failure to swear in the jury during the trial was a fundamental error that could not be waived or cured by retroactively administering the oath after the verdict. The juror's oath is an essential element of the constitutional guarantee to a trial by an impartial jury and is not a mere formality (paras 4-5, 7).
• The Court rejected the State's argument that the error was harmless, emphasizing that the instructions given to the jury during the trial were not equivalent to the juror's oath. The voir dire oath, which was administered during jury selection, served a different purpose and could not substitute for the oath required at the beginning of the trial (paras 3-5).
• The Court also found that the Defendant's failure to raise the issue during the trial did not constitute a waiver of the error, as the responsibility to ensure the jury is properly sworn lies with the trial court, not the Defendant (paras 8-9).
• The Court concluded that the delay in administering the oath until after the verdict was rendered was tantamount to a complete failure to swear in the jury, rendering the conviction invalid (paras 7-8).