Adrian Durden v. State of Indiana
83 N.E.3d 1232
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Adrian Durden was convicted by a jury of murder and eight drug-related offenses after a second trial (first trial ended in a hung jury).
- About 1 hour 44 minutes into deliberations a juror (Juror No. 12) sent a note saying she could not agree and asked to be excused.
- The trial judge consulted counsel in chambers (off-record) and, with defense counsel’s stated acquiescence, removed Juror No. 12 and seated the second alternate (skipping the first alternate) during deliberations.
- The court did not question Juror No. 12 on the record about her note, did not question other jurors on the record about the impact of removal, and did not give an on-the-record instruction that removal did not reflect approval or disapproval of her views.
- The jury convicted Durden of murder and the drug counts; Durden appealed, arguing removal of a deliberating juror required reversal as fundamental/structural error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Durden's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removing a juror after deliberations began requires reversal | The defense affirmatively agreed to removal, so no fundamental-error review; no record shows prejudice or that removal prevented a fair verdict | Removal was effectively for inability to agree; trial court violated Riggs and T.R. 47(B) (skipped alternates) and failed to create the required on-record findings and instructions; unjustified removal is structural error | Reversed and remanded: removal after deliberations without an adequate on‑record basis and required precautions (including questioning and instruction) warranted reversal as structural error |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. State, 809 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 2004) (removal of a juror after deliberations begins is permissible only in extreme situations; unjustified removal is structural error and requires a developed on‑record basis and accompanying instruction)
- Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (failure to object waives issues absent narrow fundamental-error exception)
- Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 2007) (structural error is a variant of fundamental error)
- Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1987) (some rights, including impartial adjudicator, are so fundamental that their violation is not subject to harmless‑error analysis)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2017) (explaining the structural error doctrine and that certain trial defects affect the framework of the trial and defy harmless‑error analysis)
- Lindsey v. State, 295 N.E.2d 819 (Ind. 1973) (requires a record to establish juror bias or grounds for excusal)