State v. Hairston
298 Neb. 251
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On July 30, 2015, a Saturn (registered to Lafferrell Matthews) passed an Oldsmobile in Omaha; shots were fired into the Oldsmobile. One occupant was shot.
- Matthews eventually told police he was driving, and that Dominique Hairston (front passenger) and Nico Wofford (rear passenger) were in the Saturn; Matthews testified at trial that Hairston fired shots from the front passenger window.
- Hairston testified he was not in Matthews’ car at the time and had an alibi witness (Kayla Cash), who invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify after advice from her attorney.
- Two DVDs of surveillance footage (original and a slowed/enlarged redacted version) were admitted into evidence and shown to the jury; during deliberations jurors used a court-provided laptop to view a mirrored/reversed image of the video.
- After verdicts finding Hairston guilty on unlawful discharge of a firearm and use of a weapon to commit a felony, Hairston moved for a new trial alleging (1) juror misconduct (viewing a mirrored image of the admitted video) and (2) prosecutorial misconduct (prosecutor warned Cash she could be prosecuted for perjury if she testified). The district court denied a new trial and declined an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct: jurors viewed reversed/mirrored image of admitted surveillance video during deliberations | Hairston: jurors accessed a different/manipulated view of the video—extraneous prejudicial information—warranting a new trial | State: jurors merely reexamined an admitted exhibit; no alteration or outside information was introduced | Court: No serious juror misconduct; reversed image was not extraneous prejudicial information; no evidentiary hearing required; denial of new trial affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct: prosecutor warned potential defense witness about perjury prosecution | Hairston: prosecutor’s admonition intimidated Cash into invoking Fifth, depriving him of defense testimony | State: prosecutor’s remark was a permissible warning about penalties for perjury; Cash declined after counsel’s advice | Court: No improper threat or intimidation shown; prosecutor’s warning did not constitute misconduct; denial of new trial affirmed |
| Requirement for evidentiary hearing on allegations of misconduct | Hairston: factual disputes (jury statements and prosecutor remarks) required live evidence to test credibility | State: allegations did not show serious misconduct warranting further inquiry | Court: Because Hairston failed to make a showing that tended to prove serious misconduct, the court properly denied an evidentiary hearing |
| Standard for proving juror misconduct and prejudice | Hairston: argued juror conduct prejudiced his right to fair trial | State: burden on defendant to prove misconduct and prejudice by preponderance | Court: Reiterated defendant must prove existence and prejudice by preponderance; Hairston did not meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoerle, 297 Neb. 840 (discussing deference to trial court on new-trial motions in criminal cases)
- State v. Cardeilhac, 293 Neb. 200 (jury-misconduct proof burden and when evidentiary hearing is required)
- State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 (definition of "extraneous prejudicial information")
- People v. Collins, 49 Cal. 4th 175 (juror use of computer to diagram evidence was permissible critical examination, not acquisition of new facts)
- People v. Turner, 22 Cal. App. 3d 174 (use of magnifying glass to more closely view admitted evidence was acceptable)
- State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 797 (prosecutorial intimidation of defense witness that foreclosed testimony can require reversal)
- United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (distinguishing permissible warnings about perjury from impermissible threats to intimidate witnesses)