Summary
This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion addresses whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motions to dismiss a juror and declare a mistrial after it was revealed that the juror was casually acquainted with the victim and prosecution witness. The court applied an abuse of discretion standard, noting that while the juror gave equivocal responses regarding his impartiality, he did not explicitly state he could not be fair, and the trial judge was best positioned to assess his demeanor. Relying on precedent that emphasizes deference to trial courts in juror competency determinations, the court affirmed the defendant's theft conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to remove a juror who was acquainted with the victim.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion; the juror’s casual acquaintance and equivocal statements did not require removal or a mistrial.
Key quotations
“The competency of a juror is generally presumed, and the burden is on the challenging party to establish otherwise.” (at 773)
“A juror is not incompetent merely because he is an acquaintance of one of the witnesses.” (at 773)
Factual background
Dennis Krutilek was convicted of theft of a vehicle valued over $1,500 after selling the engine of a stolen car. During trial a juror disclosed a casual friendship with the victim, Karen Goswick, and was not excused or the trial declared a mistrial.
Procedural history
The trial court denied Krutilek's motions to remove a juror who was acquainted with the victim and to declare a mistrial. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska reviewed the discretionary denial of the juror motions.