State v. Hurd, 2010 ME 118

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated Ryan Hurd's aggravated OUI conviction after the trial court allowed a discharged jury to reconvene and change its announced not-guilty verdict to guilty on an accomplice-liability theory. The court held that M.R. Evid. 606(b) barred post-discharge inquiry into the jury's deliberative process and prevented the jury from impeaching or altering its original verdict absent outside influence or external juror misconduct. The case was remanded for entry of the original not-guilty verdict.

Holdings

1. After a court accepts a verdict and discharges the jury, it may not inquire into the jury's deliberative process, reconvene the jury, and accept a different verdict based on alleged confusion or a mistake in reporting the original verdict, absent an inquiry permitted by M.R. Evid. 606(b), such as whether extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence affected the jury.
2. When a crime may be committed as either a principal or an accomplice, the jury must unanimously find that the crime was committed and that each element was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but need not unanimously agree on whether the defendant was guilty as a principal or as an accomplice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may, after accepting a jury's not-guilty verdict and discharging the jury, question the jury about its deliberations, reconvene it, and accept a different guilty verdict.
2. Whether M.R. Evid. 606(b) prohibits post-discharge inquiry into jury confusion or an alleged mistake in reporting a verdict in a criminal case.
3. Whether a jury must unanimously agree that a defendant acted as a principal or as an accomplice when it is unanimous that the charged crime was committed.
4. Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on accomplice liability for aggravated OUI.

Disposition

vacated