425 P.3d 172
Alaska Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jerry L. Coffin was tried for third-degree sexual assault and first-degree harassment; jury began deliberations and one alternate juror remained excused but not discharged.
- After the first day of deliberations was suspended, one juror later required emergency medical care and could not return; the court summoned the excused-but-not-discharged alternate and seated him in place of the ill juror.
- The court instructed the alternate not to discuss the case while retained and told the reconstituted jury to “reboot” and restart deliberations; neither party objected to the substitution or the court’s instructions.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict on the sexual-assault charge after several hours of resumed deliberations and deadlocked on the harassment charge (which was later dismissed by the State).
- Coffin appealed, arguing plain error from the mid-deliberation substitution of an alternate juror in violation of Alaska Criminal Rule 24(b)(2).
- The Court of Appeals acknowledged the procedure violated Alaska Rule 24(b)(2) but affirmed the conviction, finding no plain error given the safeguards used, counsel’s acquiescence, and precedent in other jurisdictions allowing such substitution with safeguards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substituting an alternate juror after deliberations began violated Rule 24(b)(2) and requires reversal | Coffin: substitution after deliberations began was plain error violating Rule 24 and his constitutional jury right | State: although Rule 24 was technically violated, the substitution coupled with safeguards did not deny constitutional rights and did not require reversal | Although the procedure violated Rule 24(b)(2), under the circumstances (safeguards used and no objection) there was no plain error and conviction affirmed |
| Whether additional inquiries (e.g., questioning alternate about compliance, asking jurors if they could set aside prior deliberations) were required | Coffin: court should have made further inquiries to ensure fairness | State: such additional steps were not necessary given the instructions, opportunity to object, and no indication of prejudice | Court: additional inquiries would be preferable but their absence did not make the error reversible here |
| Whether jury actually "rebooted" and followed instructions after substitution | Coffin: quick question about harassment suggests jurors didn’t restart deliberations on convicted charge | State: jury deliberated for many hours after substitution and jurors presumed to follow instructions | Court: presumption that jurors follow instructions applied; record shows substantial post-substitution deliberation, so no basis to infer noncompliance |
| Whether Plate v. State requires automatic reversal when substitution occurs | Coffin: Plate forbids substitution once deliberations have begun and supports reversal | State: Plate turned on objection and lack of safeguards; it did not hold every Rule 24 violation is reversible error | Court: Plate controls that Rule 24 forbids substitution, but reversal is not automatic — context matters; here no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Plate v. State, 925 P.2d 1057 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996) (held Rule 24(b)(2) does not authorize substitution once deliberations have begun and reversed where substitution occurred over defense objection and safeguards were lacking)
- Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991) (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (plain-error standard requires showing fundamental unfairness or miscarriage of justice)
- People v. Burnette, 775 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1989) (discussed additional inquiries and safeguards when alternates replace jurors during deliberations)