Saundra S. Wahl v. State of Indiana and Daniel P. Wahl v. State of Indiana
51 N.E.3d 113
| Ind. | 2016Background
- Daniel and Saundra Wahl were convicted of involuntary manslaughter after a child died at their in-home day care following a 2013 trial in Hamilton County.
- After the jury began deliberations, an alternate juror remained in the jury room and, according to a juror affidavit and an email to the judge, participated despite instructions not to: leading discussion, manipulating a baby-gate exhibit, and replaying a DVD at increasing volume.
- The trial court denied the Wahls’ motions for mistrial (one pre-sentencing and one raised in a motion to correct error supported by the alternate-juror affidavit).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; this Court granted transfer and consolidated the appeals. The juror affidavit was admitted under Evidence Rule 606(b)(2) because an alternate is considered an “outside influence.”
- Applying Ramirez v. State, the Court held the affidavit established (by a preponderance) extrajudicial contact by an unauthorized person that pertained to the case, triggering a presumption of prejudice that the State failed to rebut.
- The Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial; Justice Massa concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing the State should have an opportunity to interview jurors before ordering a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-verdict juror misconduct by an alternate juror triggers a presumption of prejudice | Wahls: alternate’s participation in deliberations (physical manipulation of exhibits; replaying DVD) was extrajudicial contact pertaining to the case, so prejudice is presumed under Ramirez | State: juror affidavit is barred by Evid. R. 606(b) and, in any event, alternate’s conduct diminished and verdict was unanimous, so no prejudice | Court: affidavit admissible (alternate is an outside influence); Ramirez presumption applies because contact pertained to the case; State failed to rebut; convictions reversed |
| Whether Evid. R. 606(b) bars juror testimony about deliberations here | Wahls: juror affidavit falls within 606(b) exception for outside influences because an alternate is not a juror | State: 606(b) prohibits juror testimony about deliberation incidents | Court: exception applies; an alternate is an outside influence (Henri, Griffin), so affidavit admissible |
| What burden shifts once presumption of prejudice arises? | Wahls: once presumption arises, State must prove harmlessness by showing jury remained impartial | State: defendants failed to show that actual prejudice likely occurred | Court: burden shifts to State to rebut presumption by proving impartiality; State did not meet burden here |
| Remedy when State fails to rebut presumption of prejudice | Wahls: new trial required | State: denial of mistrial was appropriate; no new trial needed | Court: reverse convictions and remand for new trial; Justice Massa would instead remand for further hearing to let State attempt to prove harmlessness |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933 (Ind. 2014) (two-part test: extrajudicial contact + pertains to case triggers presumption of prejudice; State must rebut)
- Henri v. Curto, 908 N.E.2d 196 (Ind. 2009) (an alternate is an outside influence under Evid. R. 606(b))
- Griffin v. State, 754 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. 2001) (same principle regarding alternates as outside influences)
- Riggs v. State, 809 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 2004) (right to an impartial jury is fundamental and not subject to harmless-error treatment without proof)
- Weisheit v. State, 26 N.E.3d 3 (Ind. 2015) (example of harmlessness found where most jurors were unexposed and remaining jurors said influence had no effect)
- Caruthers v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2010) (courts must ensure jury impartiality)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (federal standard discussed in concurrence; no presumption of prejudice for ‘‘garden-variety’’ misconduct)