Johnson v. State, 31 A.3d 239

Petitioner Shawn Johnson was tried in Baltimore City Circuit Court and convicted of robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and related offenses.
Two inoperable cell phones allegedly used by Johnson’s cousin, Reid, a conspirator and State’s witness, were admitted into evidence and sent to the jury.
During deliberations, the jury learned that a juror inserted a battery into a cell phone and activated it, revealing information corroborative of Reid’s testimony.
The court told counsel and instructed the jury to disregard the cell-phone data and asked jurors if anyone could not comply with this instruction.
Johnson moved for a mistrial; the court denied it, relying on the instruction and lack of juror response.
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; this Court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does juror access to extrinsic data presumptively prejudice?	Johnson contends presumption applies due to extrinsic data exposure.	State argues no presumptive prejudice; cure by instruction suffices.	Presumption not required; court erred in denying mistrial without voir dire.
Was the trial court's curative action sufficient to cure prejudice without a mistrial?	Voir dire needed to assess prejudice and remedy isolation of data.	Curative instruction and polling were adequate.	No; discretion abused; more factual inquiry needed before denial of mistrial.
Should the court have conducted voir dire to determine extent of prejudice?	Court should inquire to measure impact on deliberations.	Investigations were unnecessary after juror disclosed misconduct.	Yes; failure to voir dire unconstitutional under Dillard line of authority.
Does the absence of immediate, formal prejudice rebuttal affect the ruling?	Immediate disclosure does not cure potential prejudice.	Disclosure and instruction mitigate risk of prejudice.	No; cannot rely on general admonitions when information is highly prejudicial.

Dillard v. State, 415 Md. 445 (Md. 2010) (trial court must conduct meaningful inquiry into juror misconduct)
Jenkins v. State, 375 Md. 284 (Md. 2003) (impartial jury rights; presumption of prejudice where misconduct affects credibility)
Wardlaw v. State, 185 Md. App. 440 (Md. Ct. App. 2009) (presumption of prejudice where internet research influences deliberations)
Stokes v. State, 379 Md. 618 (Md. 2004) (alternate jurors during deliberations can create prejudice; new trial remedy)
Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1959) (trial court wide discretion in pursuing juror-inquiry into misconduct)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (U.S. 1965) (evidence must come from the witness stand in open court)
Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1907) (open-court evidence requirement; outside influence prohibited)
Dillard v. State, 415 Md. 445 (Md. 2010) (emphasizes need for factual inquiry before denying mistrial)