State v. Hiawatha Brown
62 A.3d 1099
R.I.2013Background
- Brown sentenced on counts for simple assault and disorderly conduct after joint trial with six codefendants.
- Jury was 15 members, drawn from a panel of 16; three minorities initially, one ill and discharged leaving two minorities on the panel.
- Brown sought to seat all fifteen jurors or select the minority jurors for deliberations; trial court denied.
- During deliberations, juror notes indicated frustration and possible improper discussions; trial court conducted in-chambers interviews.
- Brown moved for a mistrial or removal of Juror 175; the court denied these motions and later gave the jury an Allen charge.
- Brown moved for a new trial; affidavits from jurors alleging bias or misconduct were reviewed, but the trial court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on racial bias was necessary | Brown contends bias infected deliberations requiring a hearing. | Brown argues Rule 606(b) permits inquiry to protect due process. | No evidentiary hearing required; lack of clear bias evidence. |
| Whether all fifteen jurors could or should deliberate | Brown asserts the fifteen-member panel should deliberate instead of twelve. | Rule 24(c) limits deliberating panel to twelve absent agreement; no right to extra juror. | Trial court did not err; cannot seat more than twelve without stipulation. |
| Whether jury instruction allowed defense based on police conduct | Brown sought instruction that police-provoked conduct could negate disorderly conduct. | Brown cites precedent for provocation as a defense to disorderly conduct. | No reversible error; provocation not a defense under Rhode Island law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Drowne, 602 A.2d 540 (R.I. 1992) (juror testimony to impeach verdict governed by Rule 606(b))
- State v. Hartley, 656 A.2d 954 (R.I. 1995) (Rule 606(b) and deliberations; limits on cross-deliberation testimony)
- State v. Rodriquez, 694 A.2d 1202 (R.I. 1997) (juror misconduct not involving extraneous information)
- Amphavannasouk v. Simoneau, 861 A.2d 451 (R.I. 2004) (juror misconduct involving personal observations not necessarily probative)
- Villar v. United States, 586 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2009) (racial bias as exception to Rule 606(b) in rare cases)