State v. Chin., 353 P.3d 979

Susan Chin was convicted after a jury trial on charges including first-degree theft and money laundering relating to her role as a caregiver for an elderly complainant. The jury returned mixed verdicts; Chin was convicted on Counts I, IV, and VI.
After trial, defense witness Charles Bowen declared that a juror (the foreperson) approached him in a men’s room during trial and handed him a business card seeking employment; Bowen later realized the man was a juror and told Chin and her counsel.
The defense moved for a new trial on the ground that the juror–witness contact violated Chin’s rights to an impartial jury and due process; the trial court denied the motion without questioning the juror(s).
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed, applying a test that required the defendant to show she was substantially prejudiced before the court had a duty to investigate.
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the trial court erred by not investigating the alleged juror–witness contact and to clarify the proper application of the Williamson/Keliiholokai framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chin made a prima facie showing that the outside influence could substantially prejudice her right to a fair trial	The State: defendant failed to show substantial prejudice or that contact affected deliberations	Chin: juror (foreperson) violated court instruction and sought a favor from a defense witness; any nontrivial juror–witness contact raises a presumption of prejudice	Held: Chin made a prima facie showing—nontrivial contact between a juror and a witness is of a nature that could substantially prejudice the defendant
Duty of the trial court once a prima facie showing is made	The State: no duty to recall/question jurors absent evidence of actual prejudice	Chin: once presumption of prejudice is raised the court must investigate; burden shifts to State to prove harmlessness	Held: Trial court must investigate the totality of the circumstances (including questioning implicated juror(s)); State must prove harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt; failure to investigate requires vacatur and remand for new trial

State v. Keliiholokai, 58 Haw. 356, 569 P.2d 891 (Haw. 1977) (trial court must determine whether outside influence’s nature could be substantially prejudicial and, if so, investigate)
State v. Williamson, 72 Haw. 97, 807 P.2d 593 (Haw. 1991) (establishes prima facie showing raises rebuttable presumption and requires inquiry into totality of circumstances)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (U.S. 1954) (private communications with jurors during trial are presumptively prejudicial and warrant hearing)
Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892) (improper communications that could prejudice jurors can invalidate verdict)
State v. Furutani, 76 Haw. 172, 873 P.2d 51 (Haw. 1994) (court not required to interrogate jury absent a showing that influence could substantially prejudice)
State v. Bailey, [citation="126 Hawai'i 383, 271 P.3d 1142"] (Haw. 2012) (applied Williamson/Keliiholokai test; court properly investigated juror statements)
State v. Amorin, 58 Haw. 623, 574 P.2d 895 (Haw. 1978) (trial court’s adequate investigation can show misconduct was harmless)
State v. Pokini, 55 Haw. 640, 526 P.2d 94 (Haw. 1974) (strong policy protecting jury integrity; presumption of prejudice for unauthorized contacts)