People of Michigan v. Noralee Marie Hope
324703
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Defendant Noralee Hope was convicted by a jury of domestic assault (third offense) after an incident with her dating partner, Dwayne O’Banner, involving alleged grabbing, hitting, ripping his shirt/pocket, and preventing him from calling police.
- Trial evidence consisted mainly of O’Banner’s testimony and a responding officer; defense theory attacked the victim’s credibility and sought to keep out evidence of defendant’s prior domestic-assault convictions.
- Before trial, the court granted the defense motion to exclude mention of defendant’s prior domestic-assault convictions and warrants.
- During voir dire, a juror disclosed familiarity with defendant’s daughter and said it would not affect her fairness; the juror was not excused.
- After conviction, that juror submitted an affidavit revealing she knew of defendant’s prior domestic-violence involvement and believed defendant had an abusive relationship with her daughter; she had argued for guilt during deliberations.
- The trial court denied a motion for a new trial; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the juror’s knowledge constituted an extraneous influence that could have affected the verdict and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury was exposed to extraneous influence | Jurisdiction (prosecution) argued voir dire disclosure and juror’s assurances showed no prejudice | Hope argued juror’s postverdict affidavit showed juror knew of her prior domestic-violence history and discussed it during deliberations | Court held juror was exposed to extraneous information about defendant’s prior domestic-violence and family issues, satisfying first Budzyn prong |
| Whether the extraneous influence created a real and substantial possibility of affecting the verdict | Prosecution argued the juror affirmed she could be fair and that conviction was supported by trial evidence | Hope argued the extraneous knowledge directly bore on credibility and contradicted defense theory that the victim was the abuser | Court held the extraneous information related to a material issue (credibility/prior acts excluded at trial) and could have affected the verdict, satisfying second Budzyn prong |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Prosecution argued any influence was harmless because juror said she reached a fair decision and evidence supported guilt | Hope argued the excluded prior-act information was non-duplicative and central to credibility; evidence was not overwhelming | Court held prosecution did not show harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt and reversed for a new trial |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claims require resolution now | Prosecution implicitly contended any counsel errors were not prejudicial given conviction | Hope raised two ineffective-assistance claims | Court declined to address ineffective-assistance claims because reversal and new trial rendered them moot (but noted claims failed on review) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Budzyn, 456 Mich. 77 (juror exposure to extraneous information requires reversal unless harmless)
- People v. Stokes, 312 Mich. App. 181 (standard for jury-impartiality and review of new-trial motion)
- People v. Miller, 482 Mich. 540 (burden to show juror partiality; factual-findings clear-error standard)
- Warger v. Shauers, 135 S. Ct. 521 (distinction between external/extraneous information and jurors’ internal experiences)