State v. Rolando Terrell (077730) (Essex County and Statewide)
173 A.3d 190
| N.J. | 2017Background
- During deliberations in a criminal trial, Juror Number Two reported prior contact outside the courthouse (a man said “not guilty”), but initially affirmed impartiality after court inquiry.
- After three days of deliberations, Juror Number Two and another juror asked to be excused for emotional reasons.
- The trial court conducted a brief colloquy with Juror Number Two, asking only whether she felt emotionally unable to continue; the juror gave contradictory answers but ultimately the court removed her without further probing.
- An alternate juror was seated and the jury returned a verdict within about two and a half hours.
- Justice Albin (dissenting in part) argued the court’s colloquy was insufficient to determine whether the juror’s emotional distress was personal or related to jury deliberations, warranting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of a deliberating juror was proper under Rule 1:8-2(d)(1) ("inability to continue") | Court may remove a juror for personal inability to continue; the juror stated she could not emotionally continue | Removal improper because court did not establish the distress was personal and unrelated to deliberations | Dissent: Removal was improper because the court failed to determine whether distress was linked to deliberative process; new trial required |
| Adequacy of the court’s colloquy to determine cause of juror’s inability | Brief questioning sufficed to assess juror’s capacity | Court needed pointed questions to exclude deliberation-related causes (e.g., conflict with other jurors or prior courthouse incident) | Dissent: Colloquy was fatally deficient; court should have asked whether distress related exclusively to personal matters or interactions with other jurors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 182 N.J. 112 (restrictive construction of juror-removal rule to protect fair trial)
- State v. Musa, 222 N.J. 554 (removal for being disputatious and disagreeing with other jurors undermines deliberations)
- State v. Valenzuela, 136 N.J. 458 (juror excused only for reasons exclusive to personal situation, not interaction with jury)
- State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239 (removal requires record showing inability to function is personal and unrelated to juror interaction)