852 S.E.2d 468
S.C. Ct. App.2020Background:
- Randy Wright was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature after a jury returned a guilty verdict following about two hours of deliberation.
- When the jury announced its verdict, the courtroom clerk read the verdict form and asked, “if this is your verdict, would you please signify by raising your right hand?” Each juror raised a hand collectively.
- Wright requested an individual poll of jurors; the trial court denied the request, reasoning each juror had raised a hand individually in response to the clerk's inquiry.
- Wright appealed, arguing the collective show-of-hands did not satisfy his right to an individual jury poll.
- The Court of Appeals held (1) individual polling requires each juror be separately asked to confirm verbally on the record that the announced verdict is their verdict, and (2) denial of that right is reversible per se (not subject to harmless-error review). The conviction was reversed and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a collective show-of-hands satisfies a defendant's right to poll the jury | The clerk's group question and each juror raising a hand sufficed as individual assent | A requested poll requires each juror to be asked separately to state on the record their verdict | Collective show-of-hands is insufficient; each juror must be asked individually to verbally confirm their verdict |
| Whether denial of an individual poll requires automatic reversal or is subject to harmless-error review | Any error is harmless because jurors rarely recant and evidence supports verdict | Denial of the polling right is a fundamental error not amenable to harmless-error analysis | Denial of the right to individual polling is reversible per se (automatic reversal) |
Key Cases Cited:
- State v. Linder, 276 S.C. 304 (1981) (court held a poll must be taken if requested but did not prescribe polling mechanics)
- Humphries v. District of Columbia, 174 U.S. 190 (1899) (poll’s object is to ensure each juror truly assents and was not coerced)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (distinguishes structural errors from trial errors)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (framework for deciding when errors are structural and not subject to harmless-error review)
- State v. Pare, 755 A.2d 180 (2000) (collecting authorities holding jurors must be addressed individually to ensure unanimity)
- State v. Kelly, 372 S.C. 167 (2007) (example of juror recantation on polling and discussion of poll importance)
- United States v. Miller, 59 F.3d 417 (1995) (collective questioning is not the best method to accomplish a jury poll)
- United States v. F.J. Vollmer & Co., 1 F.3d 1511 (1993) (denial of proper polling treated as reversible error)