State v. Madren
954 N.W.2d 881
Neb.2021Background
- James M. Madren was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 30–38 years.
- After the case was submitted, an alternate juror mistakenly remained in the jury room for about an hour of deliberations.
- The trial court discovered the error, recalled the jury, dismissed the alternate, instructed the jury to "begin deliberations anew from scratch," and declined to question the alternate or individual jurors about any communications.
- Madren moved for a mistrial and later for a new trial, seeking an evidentiary hearing and permission to obtain an affidavit from the alternate; the trial court denied both motions without taking testimony or evidence.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and held the trial court erred by failing to conduct the mandatory evidentiary hearing required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2102(2), remanding for such a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Madren) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an alternate jurors presence in deliberations is per se reversible error or subject to harmless-error analysis | Instruction to restart deliberations and subsequent jury poll cured any prejudice; harmless-error framework applies | Presence of alternate violated right to impartial jury and cannot be cured without inquiry; at least an evidentiary hearing required | Presence creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice; use harmless-error analysis (not per se reversal) but the presumption must be tested by record inquiry |
| Whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing under § 29-2102(2) after Madren's written motion for new trial | No hearing was necessary because the courts admonition and jury polling resolved the issue | § 29-2102(2) mandates a hearing when motion alleges facts that, if true, would materially affect substantial rights; hearing required to test presumption | Trial court had a mandatory duty to hold an evidentiary hearing; failure to do so was error |
| Whether a general request to the jury and instruction to restart deliberations was an adequate cure | The admonition and request to report any influence were sufficient to cure prejudice | A generic admonition is insufficient without knowing the extent of the alternates participation; individualized inquiry is required | An instruction to restart is not a panacea; individualized fact-finding is necessary to determine prejudice |
| Standard of appellate review when trial court denies a new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing | Deferential review | De novo review is required because the trial court failed to hold the hearing mandated by statute | De novo review applies to the trial courts dismissal of a motion for new trial without the required evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513 (1991) (presence of alternate creates rebuttable presumption of prejudice; evidentiary hearing and juror testimony can rebut)
- United States v. Beasley, 464 F.2d 468 (10th Cir. 1972) (cautions against intrusive inquiry into jurors' mental processes)
- State v. Owen, 1 Neb. App. 1060 (1993) (remanded where trial court refused evidentiary hearing over jury irregularity allegations)
- State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154 (2017) (de novo review applies when trial court dismisses new-trial motion without required hearing)
- State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432 (2000) (discusses harmless-error framework in criminal jury-trial context)