People v. Larsen, 2017 CO 29

Larsen was tried for sexual-assault charges based on allegations by two child relatives; one victim (A.H.) testified he touched her breasts; another (K.H.) had inconsistent statements; Larsen made inculpatory admissions in recorded calls.
During jury selection and repeatedly during trial (including immediately before a weekend), the court specifically admonished jurors not to read, search, or discuss any media about the case, including Internet sources.
After the close of evidence and before jurors were dismissed for the weekend, a reporter attended court and the judge again warned jurors to avoid media reports.
Over the weekend a local newspaper published (and posted online) a story containing prejudicial, extra-record allegations about the extent and timing of abuse; defense counsel asked the court to poll jurors about exposure to the article.
The trial court refused to poll, citing its trust in the jury, the jury’s prior admonitions, and concern that asking could spark juror curiosity; the jury convicted on some counts and acquitted on another.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion under Harper by refusing to poll; the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, affirming the conviction.

Issue	People’s Argument	Larsen’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to poll jurors after a prejudicial midtrial news report	Repeated, specific admonitions plus the article’s limited local/web distribution made exposure unlikely; polling could spur juror curiosity — refusal was within discretion	Article contained prejudicial, inadmissible details published midtrial; under Harper the court should have canvassed the jury	Court held no abuse of discretion: given repetitive admonitions, limited distribution, and risk that questioning would encourage exposure, trial court properly declined to poll

Harper v. People, 817 P.2d 77 (Colo. 1991) (establishes three-step process and factors for assessing prejudicial midtrial media)
Martin v. People, 738 P.2d 789 (Colo. 1987) (split verdicts can indicate absence of community prejudice affecting verdict)
Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007) (harmless-error standard for constitutional trial errors)
Hagos v. People, 288 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2012) (explains standard for harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)