State v. Fisher, 2021 Ohio 3788

Wapak Ford reported theft/damage to a police cruiser (wheels, lights missing; hood later found in a field).
Witnesses saw a suspicious person in the dealership bullpen and a black Ford truck with camo trim leaving the scene; that truck was later observed speeding in town and identified by its license plate.
Officers engaged in a pursuit of a matching truck but lost it; a deputy located the truck 15 minutes later and Fisher pulled over; items in his truck included a ski mask, gloves, tools, and three nuts matching the cruiser hood fasteners.
Fisher was charged with failure to comply (R.C. 2921.331(B)), attempted theft, and criminal trespass; he pled not guilty and proceeded to a jury trial.
During trial an alternate juror reported two juror comments (one about evidence access and one questioning why a defendant would not testify); the court allowed deliberations to continue and held post-verdict individual juror questioning; jury convicted on all counts.
Fisher moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct; the trial court denied the motion, concluding any comments were either procedural, cured by instructions, and/or did not prejudice Fisher; this appeal followed.

Issue	State's Argument	Fisher's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by allowing deliberations to continue before fully investigating alleged juror comments	Post-verdict inquiry was adequate; no requirement to interrupt deliberations; court still held a hearing after verdict	Court should have conducted an immediate hearing/investigation before allowing deliberations to proceed	No abuse of discretion; post-deliberation inquiry and opportunity to question jurors sufficed
Whether the juror comments amounted to misconduct that deprived Fisher of a fair trial	Any errant comments were procedural or made before final instructions; jurors later said they were not influenced and followed instructions	Comments (e.g., on why defendant wouldn’t testify) improperly suggested guilt and prejudiced Fisher	No prejudicial misconduct shown; jurors affirmed they considered only evidence and instructions; new trial denied

Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (post-trial hearing can adequately protect due process rights regarding juror impartiality)
State v. Gunnell, 132 Ohio St.3d 442 (2012) (trial court has duty to hold a hearing when possible juror improprieties arise)
State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108 (2000) (defer to trial judge on scope of inquiry into alleged juror misconduct; abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72 (1995) (a juror’s assertion of impartiality may be relied upon by the trial court)
State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49 (1995) (jury is presumed to follow curative instructions)
State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (Crim.R. 33 motions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)