Bell v. State
263 P.3d 840
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- A juror (Greg Black) had a pending rape charge in another county when Bell's jury was selected.
- Black concealed the pending charge during general voir dire and in responses to questions about arrests and related crimes.
- Bell sought a new trial under K.S.A. 60-1507; district court denied it for lack of showing that Black's misconduct affected the trial outcome.
- Bell argued under Kerby v. Hiesterman that intentional falsehoods in voir dire mandate a new trial even without proven prejudice.
- The State relied on Mathis and Jenkins, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice plus misconduct for a new trial.
- The court applied a two-step test: first, whether juror misconduct occurred; second, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman when constitutional rights are implicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bell is entitled to a new trial due to juror misconduct | Bell (Bell) asserts misconduct and prejudice via Black's false responses. | State argues no prejudice shown and relies on Mathis/Jenkins standard to require substantial prejudice. | Bell entitled to new trial; juror misconduct presumed prejudice under Kerby/Jenkins approaches; error not shown harmless beyond doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerby v. Hiesterman, 162 Kan. 490 (1947) (prejudice presumed when false voir dire deprives opportunity to challenge for cause)
- State v. Jenkins, 269 Kan. 334 (2000) (intentional deception about acquaintance with witnesses constitutes prejudice)
- State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99 (2006) (new trial requires both misconduct and substantial prejudice)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (mistrial denial reviewed under two-step analysis; Chapman harmless-error standard applies for constitutional rights)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (two-part test: honest answer to material voir dire plus prejudice as basis for challenge)
- Estrada v. Scribner, 512 F.3d 1227 (2008) (bias may be inferred when juror or family involvement relates to similar fact pattern)
- Brooks v. Dretke, 418 F.3d 430 (2005) (juror bias inferred from participation where a related factor existed)
- Burton v. Johnson, 948 F.2d 1150 (1991) (juror bias inferred from undisclosed personal history in a damaging context)