State v. Loren Kandzior, 236 A.3d 181

Loren Kandzior was tried for a 2017 sexual-assault charge at a three-day jury trial in August 2018; the jury returned a guilty verdict the third day.
During cross-examination the prosecutor requested a bench conference; immediately afterward she reported someone told her they could "hear everything we were saying" at bench conferences.
The court briefly asked the jury whether they could hear bench conferences; jurors gave ambiguous, unidentified responses and the court did not individually voir dire jurors about what they heard.
Defense counsel asked the court to instruct jurors to strike anything they may have heard but did not move for a mistrial or request an individualized voir dire at that time; post-conviction counsel moved for a new trial alleging jurors had overheard bench conferences throughout the trial.
The trial court denied the new-trial motion, reasoning the jury-curative instruction was given, it was unclear what jurors had heard, and defendant had failed to preserve the claim by not requesting voir dire/mistrial.
Vermont Supreme Court held defendant’s jury-taint claim was unpreserved (plain-error review), but the trial court committed plain error by failing to investigate the possible juror exposure (voir dire), vacated the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jurors overheard bench conferences such that a new trial was required	State: no reversible error; the court asked the jury and gave a curative instruction; unclear what jurors heard so no prejudice shown	Kandzior: jurors overheard multiple bench conferences, creating extraneous, highly prejudicial influence requiring a new trial or at least inquiry	Court: trial court failed to adequately investigate (no individual voir dire); that failure is plain/structural error — conviction vacated and remanded for new trial
Whether failure to move for mistrial/voir dire preserved the jury-taint claim; and whether the court had independent duty to investigate	State: claim was unpreserved/waived by defense conduct and should be reviewed only for plain error	Kandzior: right to fair trial is fundamental; court had an independent duty to investigate possible taint regardless of counsel’s actions	Court: claim was unpreserved so plain-error review applies; nonetheless plain error occurred because trial court, upon learning of possible juror exposure, had to investigate and establish an evidentiary basis but did not
Whether court reached defendant’s separate claim that evidence of a prior false rape allegation was wrongly excluded	State: not reached on appeal in this decision	Kandzior: exclusion was erroneous (raised on appeal)	Court: did not address this claim because reversal on jury-taint ground resolved the case

State v. Woodard, 353 A.2d 321 (Vt. 1976) (failure to investigate possible juror taint is reversible/plain error).
State v. Onorato, 453 A.2d 393 (Vt. 1982) (trial court must establish evidentiary basis via voir dire when juror irregularity is discovered).
State v. FitzGerald, 683 A.2d 10 (Vt. 1996) (scope of post-discovery inquiry may vary; court need not always conduct full individual voir dire).
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (distinguishes waiver from forfeiture; discusses categories of structural error).
Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes structural errors from trial errors and explains harmless-error analysis limits).
State v. Oscarson, 845 A.2d 337 (Vt. 2004) (plain-error standard: error that strikes at the heart of substantial rights and prejudicial impact requirement).
State v. Amidon, 198 A.3d 27 (Vt. 2018) (an irregularity must have the capacity to influence jury deliberations; if shown, the State must show no effect).
State v. Mead, 54 A.3d 485 (Vt. 2012) (example of trial court conducting post-trial hearing and applying jury-irregularity framework).