266 P.3d 442
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- People appeal trial court order vacating jury verdict and ordering new trial.
- Affidavits from three jurors claim one juror had pretrial personal experience making eluding seem minor and others viewed a dictionary definition.
- Trial court found both the severity statement and dictionary definition improperly before the jury.
- Court held CRE 606(b) generally bars juror deliberation testimony but allows juror testimony on whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to light.
- Court concluded juror’s pretrial personal experience about severity was not extraneous information and that use of a dictionary definition was extraneous and prejudicial, but the prejudice finding lacked sufficient content.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror severity statement was extraneous information. | Holt | People | Not extraneous information. |
| Whether dictionary definition used by jurors prejudiced the defendant. | Holt | People | Dictionary definition prejudicial but insufficient prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kendrick v. Pippin, 252 P.3d 1052 (Colo. 2011) (extraneous information must be shown by prejudice; legal content exception discussed)
- Harlan, 109 P.3d 616 (Colo. 2005) (cre 606(b) aims at finality and shields jurors; extraneous prejudicial info defined)
- Wadle, 97 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard for new trials; mixed law and fact in extraneous info)
- Wiser v. People, 732 P.2d 1139 (Colo. 1987) (dictionary definitions of crime improper but admissibility under CRE 606(b) noted)
- Fullwood v. Lee, 290 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2002) (preconceptions of jurors; admissibility of non-legal background)