Scott A. Wright v. State of Indiana
12 N.E.3d 314
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wright was convicted of Class A felony child molesting after the trial court replaced a holdout juror during deliberations.
- Juror 356 had voted not guilty and allegedly refused to deliberate; the court replaced him with an alternate.
- The court noted the holdout juror had ceased deliberating, was dozing, and would not engage with other jurors.
- The State moved to replace the juror to ensure an effective deliberation and final verdict.
- The appellate court held the removal was improper and vacated the conviction, remanding for a new trial.
- A Riggs instruction regarding the non-approval/disapproval of the juror’s views was also required but omitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror removal after deliberations began was proper | Wright | Wright | Removal improper; vacate conviction; new trial |
| Whether the trial court failed to give a Riggs instruction | Wright | Wright | Instruction required; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Riggs v. State, 809 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 2004) (post-deliberations removal requires strict prerequisites)
- Gavin v. State, 671 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (removal of impartial juror voting acquittal gravely imperils defendant)
- Dixon v. State, 524 N.E.2d 2 (Ind. 1988) (juror refuse to participate differs from mere acquittal vote)
- Pritchard v. State, 248 Ind. 566, 230 N.E.2d 416 (1967) (jury credibility is for the jury; no intrusion on credibility)
- People v. Cleveland, 21 P.3d 1225 (Cal. 2001) (refusal to deliberate can justify removal under certain standards)