931 N.W.2d 192
N.D.2019Background
- Ross Thomas was tried on multiple charges (felonious restraint, terrorizing, reckless endangerment, aggravated assault) arising from a February 2017 incident; cases were consolidated and went to jury trial in March 2018.
- After both sides rested, the jury began deliberations; after a holiday weekend the jury was to resume to finish one remaining count.
- Before the jury reconvened, Thomas’s counsel reported Thomas had overheard non‑jurors in public discussing jury deliberations and juror decisions and asked the court to receive testimony and/or declare a mistrial.
- The district court declined to hold a hearing or take evidence at that time, stating concerns about probing the jury’s deliberative process and that any challenge could be made later by motion.
- The jury later acquitted on some charges, found Thomas guilty of terrorizing, and deadlocked on felonious restraint; Thomas appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing a hearing on alleged extraneous communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by refusing a hearing into alleged extra‑jury communications before deliberations resumed | State: court did not abuse discretion; no record of content and no evident prejudice; positions unchanged over break | Thomas: he reported overhearing non‑jurors discussing jury deliberations and sought to present witnesses; court should have halted deliberations and held a hearing | Court reversed: district court abused its discretion by refusing to conduct a hearing into alleged extra‑jury communications and remanded for new trial |
| Whether defendant preserved the issue for appeal | State: suggests record sparse | Thomas: timely raised issue before jury resumed and requested evidentiary hearing | Held: issue preserved despite limited offer of proof; court’s refusal to hear evidence preserved appellant’s claim |
| Proper procedure when potential juror misconduct is discovered | State: failure to show prejudice makes misconduct harmless | Thomas: following precedent, investigation should cease and matter immediately presented to court for inquiry | Held: consistent with precedent, when extraneous influence is alleged the trial court must inquire under proper safeguards; failure to do so was prejudicial error |
| Whether N.D.R.Ev. 606(b) barred inquiry into alleged communications | State: not argued as dispositive | Thomas: 606(b) would not preclude inquiry here into extraneous communications | Held: court did not rely on 606(b) to refuse inquiry; regardless, refusal to investigate was error requiring reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Klose, 657 N.W.2d 276 (N.D. 2003) (mistrial is an extreme remedy; granted only when continuing would produce manifest injustice)
- State v. Hidanovic, 747 N.W.2d 463 (N.D. 2008) (upon discovery of possible extraneous prejudicial information, cease independent investigation and notify the court so it can conduct questioning)
- State v. Myers, 770 N.W.2d 713 (N.D. 2009) (party must bring trial irregularity to court and seek remedy; failure to object typically requires obvious error to reverse)
- Praus ex rel. Praus v. Mack, 626 N.W.2d 239 (N.D. 2001) (discussing proper procedure for addressing juror misconduct claims)
- State v. Doll, 812 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 2012) (district court has broad discretion on mistrials; reversal only for abuse of discretion or manifest injustice)