2018 COA 152
Colo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Joshua Bohl was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his girlfriend; key dispute at trial was whether Bohl had the requisite intent, tied to how long blunt-force neck trauma continued.
- The day after verdict, a deputy district attorney (not on the case) texted the jury foreman’s wife requesting feedback; her reply described the foreman researching scientific items and creating a timeline.
- Defense moved for a new trial and alternatively sought juror contact information to investigate possible juror misconduct (extraneous information or outside research).
- The trial court subpoenaed the foreman (Mark Hillesheim) and his wife, held hearings, and heard testimony that Hillesheim researched decomposition but did not share out-of-court research with other jurors and that his timeline was based on trial evidence.
- The court found no evidence that extraneous prejudicial information was presented to the jury or that any such information was material to the disputed issue, denied the request for juror contact information, and denied a new trial; Bohl appealed only the denial of juror contact information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying defense access to juror contact information post-verdict | People: court properly protected juror privacy and did not need to disclose contacts absent evidence of impropriety | Bohl: access was "appropriate and necessary" under Crim. P. 24(a)(4) to investigate alleged juror misconduct after text disclosure | Court: no abuse of discretion; record showed no extraneous prejudicial information or prejudice and request was speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlan v. People, 109 P.3d 616 (Colo. 2005) (trial court’s credibility findings about juror misconduct are entitled to deference on appeal)
- Wiser v. People, 732 P.2d 1139 (Colo. 1987) (trial court should hold hearing to determine reasonable possibility that juror misconduct affected verdict)
- United States v. Davila, 704 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1983) (denial of post-verdict juror interviews proper where no preliminary showing of misconduct)
- United States v. King, 576 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1978) (judicial reluctance to permit post-verdict juror contact absent cause)
- United States v. Riley, 544 F.2d 237 (5th Cir. 1976) (post-trial juror interrogation disfavored absent showing of illegal or prejudicial intrusion)
- Stewart v. Rice, 47 P.3d 316 (Colo. 2002) (CRE 606(b) protects jurors from harassment and coercion)
- Holt v. People, 266 P.3d 442 (Colo. App. 2011) (new trial required only if extraneous information was improperly before jury and posed reasonable possibility of prejudice)