State v. Bailey, 271 P.3d 1142

Bailey was convicted in Hawaii Circuit Court of four counts of sexual assault in the first degree involving a 12-year-old; the incident occurred July 22, 2007 at a church copy room.
Trial proceeded with juror closure during jury selection, and Juror Nine later disclosed having knowledge of Bailey's prior murder charge; Bailey moved for mistrial, which was denied.
The circuit court replaced Juror Nine with an alternate juror after deliberations began, and instructed the remaining jurors to disregard the statements and restart deliberations.
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions; Bailey sought certiorari review arguing juror misconduct, improper instruction on an included offense, and insufficient evidence.
The Supreme Court vacated the ICA and circuit court judgments, remanding for a new trial on the four counts of attempted sexual assault in the first degree, but held that the included-offense instruction and sufficiency of evidence were properly supported.
The analysis addressed whether Juror Nine’s statements were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the propriety of the Rule 24(c) replacement, and whether retrial is appropriate given the totality of the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Juror Nine’s statements violated Bailey’s right to a fair trial	Bailey’s rights were harmed; prejudicial evidence	The court should analyze for harmless error; jurors could remain impartial	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; new trial required
Includes offense instruction warranted by evidence	Rational basis existed for including attempted sexual assault	No rational basis since evidence showed only complete penetration	Yes, rational basis supported inclusion instruction
Substantial evidence supported convictions	Evidence showed multiple witnesses and Bailey’s conduct	Inconsistencies and lack of physical injuries undermine conviction	Substantial evidence supported convictions on all counts

State v. Kalaola, 124 Haw. 43 (Haw. 2010) (retrial not barred when evidence supports conviction)
State v. Feliciano, 62 Haw. 637 (Haw. 1980) (retrial not barred under double jeopardy when lesser included offense doctrine applies)
State v. Behrendt, 124 Haw. 90 (Haw. 2010) (rational basis for lesser included offense instruction; substantial evidence)
State v. Haanio, 94 Haw. 405 (Haw. 2001) (instruction on included offenses when rational basis exists)
State v. Kim, 103 Haw. 285 (Haw. 2003) (abuse of discretion standard for new trial; jury impartiality)
State v. Furutani, 76 Haw. 172 (Haw. 1994) (abuse of discretion review for mistrial/ juror misconduct; presumption of prejudice)
State v. Yamada, 108 Haw. 474 (Haw. 2005) (abuse of discretion in new trial determinations;十二 impartial jurors)
State v. Pokini, 57 Haw. 17 (Haw. 1976) (prejudicial prior offense evidence may require mistrial)
State v. Keliiholokai, 58 Haw. 356 (Haw. 1977) (prejudice from newspaper articles about prior convictions; voir dire guidance)
Marshall v. United States, 360 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1959) (prejudice from widely disseminated information; remand for new trial)
State v. Samonte, 83 Haw. 507 (Haw. 1996) (jury taint from external communications; harmlessness analysis)