State v. Shaffona Morgan (069967)
217 N.J. 1
N.J.2013Background
- Morgan was defendant in a New Jersey Supreme Court case challenging two ex parte jury communications during deliberations.
- The trial court communicated with the deliberating jury twice and allowed the jury to take home written copies of part of the jury instructions.
- The charges included first-degree attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault with a handgun; the jury acquitted on some counts and could not reach others.
- The appellate panel had previously condemned the ex parte communications and the taking of instructions home but did not reverse.
- The Supreme Court granted certification on whether ex parte communications and taking home written instructions were reversible errors, and ultimately affirmed the Appellate Division.
- Rule 1:8-8 governs the use and location of written jury instructions and was interpreted to prohibit home review of instructions during deliberations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex parte communications improper during deliberations | Morgan argues ex parte jury communications occurred and were prejudicial | State contends communications were innocuous or harmless | Ex parte communications were improper, but not prejudicial enough to reverse |
| Jurors taking written instructions home | Morgan argues Rule 1:8-8 prohibits taking instructions home; per se rule | State argues discretion allows some flexibility | Jurors may not take written instructions home; however no prejudice shown |
| Prejudice from ex parte actions | Morgan asserts prejudice from secret discussions | State contends record shows no biasing influence | Record showed no tendency to influence the verdict; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 275 N.J. Super. 329 (App. Div. 1994) (ex parte jury contacts require caution but may not automatically reverse)
- State v. Basit, 378 N.J. Super. 125 (App. Div. 2005) (ex parte communications must be recorded and disclosed; no automatic reversal)
- State v. Auld, 2 N.J. 426 (1949) (three-part test for prejudice from improper communications)
- State v. Corsaro, 107 N.J. 339 (1987) (deliberation integrity and insularity of the jury)
- U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (1978) (danger of ex parte meetings between judge and jury foreman)
- State v. Neulander, 173 N.J. 193 (2002) (context of private jury deliberations and confidentiality)
- State v. Hightower, 146 N.J. 239 (1996) (duty to protect jurors from outside influence)
- State v. O’Brien, 200 N.J. 520 (2009) (judge discretion on providing written instructions to jury)