Nash v. State
94 A.3d 23
Md.2014Background
- Defendant Troy Nash tried for first-degree murder; four-day trial ended Friday afternoon with jury beginning deliberations at 2:40 PM.
- At 5:02 PM the jury foreperson sent a signed note: a juror had said she would vote "guilty" "because she want[ed] to go home and not return" after previously saying "not guilty."
- Defense moved for a mistrial and requested a modified Allen (jury-conciliation) instruction and voir dire; prosecutor opposed mistrial and suggested recessing.
- Trial judge read the note in open court, excused jurors for the three-day holiday weekend, gave curative instructions (no independent investigation; decide only on evidence), and refused the Allen charge and sua sponte voir dire; jurors returned Tuesday and convicted Nash; defense renewed motions for mistrial/new trial, which were denied.
- Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial, refusing Allen charge, or recessing; no violation of Md. Rule 4-326(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nash) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge erred by denying mistrial without conducting voir dire after jury note | Note alleged juror willing to vote guilty for convenience; that raised juror misconduct or presumptive prejudice requiring sua sponte voir dire | The note reflected possible future misconduct/fatigue, not egregious contact or extrinsic influence; judge had discretion and adequate noncoercive remedies | Denial of mistrial was within discretion; no presumption of prejudice; voir dire sua sponte not required |
| Whether judge should have given a modified Allen instruction on request | Allen’s admonition against surrendering honest belief addresses juror willing to change vote for convenience; it could prevent coerced verdicts | Allen-type charge is discretionary and typically used for deadlock; here no deadlock and instruction could be coercive | Refusal to give Allen instruction was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether recessing over long weekend without more violated Md. Rule 4-326(d) (responding to jury communication) | Recessing failed to "respond" to a communication that pertained to the action; judge should have more directly addressed the concern | Rule requires notice to parties and a response; judge notified counsel, read note, gave instructions, excused jury — that constituted a response tailored to the circumstances | Recess plus curative instructions satisfied Rule 4-326(d); not unsuitable under the Rule |
| Whether events on Tuesday (quick verdict) taint the Friday decision | Rapid verdict suggests juror left early or voted to go home as alleged; judge should have investigated before recess | Tuesday events do not retroactively show the Friday response was irrational; appellate review looks to reasonableness at time of decision | Court declined to consider Tuesday outcome for abuse-of-discretion review; Friday decision was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 375 Md. 284 (2003) (established limited presumption of prejudice for egregious juror contact; burden on State to rebut)
- Dillard v. State, 415 Md. 445 (2010) (trial court must conduct voir dire when factual issues about juror–witness contact make prejudicial effect unclear)
- Johnson v. State, 423 Md. 137 (2011) (judge’s response to juror-acquired extrinsic evidence was inadequate without voir dire to resolve who knew what and effect on jurors)
- Butler v. State, 392 Md. 169 (2006) (caution about coercive jury admonitions; similar notes may reflect fatigue and permit recess instead of immediate coercive instruction)
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (private communications with jurors are presumptively prejudicial and require hearing)
- Kelly v. State, 270 Md. 139 (1973) (trial judge has broad discretion to give or withhold Allen-type instruction)