State v. Gouveia

Summary

The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial after jurors expressed safety concerns about conduct by a courtroom observer during deliberations. The court held that the conduct created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice, that the presumption was not overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, and that no reasonable alternative to a mistrial was available. The court affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ judgment and rejected the argument that the trial court improperly relied on juror testimony under Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rule 606(b).

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not improperly rely on juror testimony in determining that manifest necessity existed because the relevant basis for its decision consisted of permissible evidence concerning what occurred, the jurors' reactions, and when and how the incident was discussed; the court's consideration of jurors' statements about the effect of the incident on the verdict was improper, but those statements were not the basis of the ruling.
2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding manifest necessity for a mistrial because the outside incident created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice that was not overcome beyond a reasonable doubt, and no reasonable alternative to a mistrial would have cured the potential prejudice.
3. Retrial was not barred by double jeopardy because the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by declaring a mistrial based on manifest necessity arising from an outside incident that generated juror safety concerns and may have affected deliberations.
2. Whether retrial was barred by the federal or state constitutional protections against double jeopardy after the mistrial.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly relied on juror testimony concerning the effect of the incident on the verdict under Hawaiʻi Rules of Evidence Rule 606(b).

Disposition

affirmed