American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc., 239 Ariz. 151

American Power Products sued CSK Auto (2005); after a 12-day trial with extensive exhibits, jury deliberated following closing arguments and returned a 6–2 verdict awarding American $10,733.
Closing occurred before a three-day weekend; both parties urged jurors to focus on limited exhibits rather than review the entire record.
After the verdict, a juror (H.T.) provided an affidavit stating a bailiff told the jury—when asked how long deliberations typically lasted—that “an hour or two should be plenty.”
American moved for a new trial based on the bailiff’s ex parte communication; CSK conceded the statement occurred but argued it was not prejudicial and Evidence Rule 606 limited admissible juror testimony.
The trial court denied the new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the statement was improper but not prejudicial; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for a hearing.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, affirming the trial court: no evidentiary hearing required and the bailiff’s comment, though improper, was not objectively prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying a new trial without an evidentiary hearing after a bailiff’s comment during deliberations	Bailiff’s statement curtailed deliberations and, given quick verdict, created reasonable inference of prejudice requiring further inquiry	Statement indisputably occurred but was insubstantial, unrelated to case substance, and did not create objective prejudice—no hearing needed	No error: hearing not required where facts undisputed and comment, though improper, was not likely prejudicial
Whether an improper ex parte communication requires presumed prejudice or harmless-error analysis	Argues prejudice should be presumed because jurors cannot testify about effect of communication	Communication should be judged objectively for likelihood of prejudice to a hypothetical average juror; presumption reserved for structural or fundamentally prejudicial errors	Harmless-error framework applies except for structural errors; moving party must show objective likelihood of prejudice

Perez ex rel. Perez v. Cmty. Hosp. of Chandler, Inc., 187 Ariz. 355, 929 P.2d 1303 (1996) (two-prong inquiry for ex parte communications; improper communications not presumptively prejudicial)
Perkins v. Komarnyckyj, 172 Ariz. 115, 834 P.2d 1260 (1992) (structural ex parte errors may require presumed prejudice because extent of harm is impossible to prove)
State v. Miller, 178 Ariz. 555, 875 P.2d 788 (1994) (trial court’s denial of new trial and requested evidentiary hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Rich, 184 Ariz. 179, 907 P.2d 1382 (1995) (harmless-error analysis applicable in criminal context when appropriate)
S. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Mitchell, 80 Ariz. 50, 292 P.2d 827 (1956) (requiring objective showing that extraneous communications probably prejudiced the verdict)