State v. Warren, S-1-SC-35666

Defendant Jashon Warren was tried on Counts 1 (first‑degree murder) and 2 (shooting at/from a motor vehicle); Count 3 (felon in possession) had been severed pretrial to avoid prejudice.
Jury received instructions and verdict forms for Counts 1 and 2 and returned a guilty verdict on Count 1; they did not sign any Count 2 forms.
After discharge, the court discovered three verdict forms for the severed Count 3 at the bottom of the stack of materials that had been sent to the jury for deliberations.
The district court was certain the improper Count 3 forms had been given to the jury, acknowledged responsibility, and did not know whether jurors had seen them.
Defense moved for mistrial or new trial; the district court granted a new trial, concluding the presence of the severed‑count forms prejudiced a typical juror.
The State appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed the grant of a new trial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial after jury received verdict forms for a severed count	State: No abuse — no evidence jury saw or was influenced by the improper forms, so prejudice not shown	Warren: Presence of severed‑count verdict forms in jury materials created presumptive prejudice warranting new trial	Court affirmed — presence of the severed verdict forms was an "improper communication" related to the case, creating a presumption of prejudice the State failed to rebut

State v. Jojola, 140 N.M. 660, 146 P.3d 305 (N.M. 2006) (establishes presumption of prejudice from an "improper communication" that relates to the issues of the case)
State v. Griffin, 117 N.M. 745, 877 P.2d 551 (N.M. 1994) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for new‑trial rulings)
State v. Moreland, 144 N.M. 192, 185 P.3d 363 (N.M. 2008) (no abuse of discretion when record supports trial court's balancing)
State v. Benally, 131 N.M. 258, 34 P.3d 1134 (N.M. 2001) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)
State v. Smith, 130 N.M. 117, 19 P.3d 254 (N.M. 2001) (same)