3 N.E.3d 1105
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant convicted after jury trial for armed robbery based on theft at knifepoint from a homeless-shelter resident; codefendant not party to appeal.
- Juror 31 was observed taking notes during charge; he admitted note-taking, provided his notes, and counsel did not seek his removal at that time.
- During deliberations the jury reported being unable to reach unanimity overnight and resumed next day; after supplemental instructions, jurors again asked for clarification.
- Less than an hour into the second day, juror note said one juror (Juror 31) felt unable to continue due to emotional distress; Juror 31 confirmed to the judge he felt his ability to assess evidence was negatively affected and asked to be replaced by an alternate.
- Judge excused Juror 31 over the defendant’s objection, seated an alternate, instructed jurors to restart deliberations (but did not state the discharge was personal and unrelated to views on the case), and the jury returned guilty verdicts shortly thereafter.
- On appeal, defendant argued Juror 31’s discharge was procedurally defective and that the trial judge failed to give the required instruction explaining the dismissal was personal and unrelated to the juror’s views or relationships.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge followed required procedures before discharging a deliberating juror | Procedures satisfied; juror reported inability to perform and judge could discharge for inability due to emotional distress | Judge failed to conduct the Connor-style hearing and did not limit questioning or obtain findings that distress was personal and unrelated to deliberations | Reversal: procedures not followed; discharge procedurally defective |
| Whether Juror 31’s emotional distress provided good cause for discharge | Juror’s prior comments and present report showed significant anxiety justifying removal without experts | Record did not show severe, incapacitating distress; responses were rational and could reflect dissent/impasse rather than personal incapacity | Remand required: record insufficient to support discharge on physical/mental incapacity ground |
| Whether judge was required to instruct remaining jurors that discharge was personal and unrelated to juror’s views/relationships (Connor instruction) | No plain error; jurors likely knew juror was distressed and reason was apparent | Failure to give the specific Connor instruction risked speculation that juror was removed to facilitate verdict | Error: judge’s brief comment that juror removed for "good reason" was insufficient; omission created substantial risk of miscarriage of justice |
| Whether error was prejudicial and requires reversal of conviction | Any error was harmless; verdict reliable | Errors were prejudicial given timing (jury previously deadlocked) and quick verdict after replacement | Judgment reversed and verdict set aside |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838 (establishes required hearing and instructions when discharging deliberating juror)
- Commonwealth v. Leftwich, 430 Mass. 865 (upheld discharge where juror exhibited extreme visible distress)
- Commonwealth v. Olavarria, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 612 (discusses interchangeability of statutory standards and coercive effect of replacing dissenting juror)
- Commonwealth v. Swafford, 441 Mass. 329 (limiting discharge to personal reasons unrelated to case or juror relationships)
- Commonwealth v. Garrey, 436 Mass. 422 (risk that a dissenting juror may evade duties if discharge not properly scrutinized)
- Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 441 Mass. 146 (review standard when defendant did not object to jury instruction)
- Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 63 Mass. App. Ct. 660 (circumstances where Connor instruction may be unnecessary are rare)
- Commonwealth v. Peppicelli, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 87 (contrast regarding harmlessness of instruction error)