State v. Michael Ross, II (072042)
93 A.3d 739
| N.J. | 2014Background
- Defendant Michael Ross II was tried on two counts of first‑degree murder, weapon offenses, and hindering prosecution in New Jersey.
- The original jury deadlocked on all counts after deliberating for several days, prompting Czachor guidance from the trial court.
- Juror No. 5 fell ill; the court substituted an alternate juror under Rule 1:8–2(d)(1) and instructed deliberations anew.
- The reconstituted jury deliberated for over sixteen hours and convicted Ross on all charges.
- Appellate Division reversed, ruling the post‑deadlock substitution constituted plain error and a mistrial was required.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, holding the substitution complied with Czachor framework and did not plain‑err.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Czachor instruction proper after deadlock? | State: Czachor was correctly applied; no plain error. | Ross: Banks prohibits substitution after deadlock and Czachor should not permit new deliberations. | Czachor instruction proper; not plain error. |
| Was substituting an alternate juror after illness appropriate after deadlock? | State: Substitution authorized under Rule 1:8‑2(d)(1) with open deliberations restart. | Ross: Substitution after impasse risks integrity of deliberations and should be mistrial. | Substitution proper; reassured by reconsidered deliberations and reopened proceedings. |
| Do the circumstances require mistrial instead of substitution after deadlock and illness? | State: No automatic mistrial; Czachor allows continued deliberations with alternates. | Ross: After impasse and substitution, trial court erred by not declaring mistrial given progress. | No mistrial required; open, fair deliberations possible with reconstituted jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Czachor, 82 N.J. 392 (1980) (deadlocked juries may be instructed to continue deliberations without coercion)
- State v. Banks, 395 N.J. Super. 205 (App. Div. 2007) (limits on substitute juror after impasse depending on context)
- State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112 (2004) (substitution may be proper to protect trial efficiency)
- State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339 (1987) (partial verdict precludes substitution; risks unfair process)
- State v. Williams, 171 N.J. 151 (2002) (inability to continue and bias considerations in substitution)
- State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239 (1996) (substitution cautioned to protect deliberative process)
- State v. Valenzuela, 136 N.J. 458 (1994) (jury member changes when related to interactions with others can be improper)