Summary
The Supreme Court of Nebraska held that improper communications between a bailiff and jurors during deliberations created prejudicial jury misconduct. The court reversed William C. Floyd's convictions for first degree murder and manslaughter of an unborn child and remanded for a new trial on those charges, while affirming his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court also addressed issues involving Batson challenges, prior-acts evidence, prosecutorial argument, hearsay, and shackling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the bailiff's communication to jurors concerning the potential duration of deliberations constituted improper jury communication and prejudiced Floyd on the murder and manslaughter charges.
- Whether the bailiff's communication required reversal of the firearm conviction.
- Whether the trial court clearly erred in denying Floyd's Batson challenge to the State's peremptory strikes.
- Whether the prosecutor's statements expressing personal opinions about Floyd's guilt required a mistrial as to the firearm conviction.
- Whether Floyd's appearance in shackles during jury polling required reversal of the firearm conviction.
- Whether evidentiary issues concerning prior incidents and a protection order required reversal of the firearm conviction.
Holdings
- A bailiff's direct response to jurors' questions about the potential duration of deliberations is an improper communication because questions concerning the case, including the duration of deliberations, must be referred to the court.
- The improper bailiff communication was sufficiently prejudicial to deny Floyd a fair trial on the first degree murder and manslaughter of an unborn child charges, requiring reversal and a new trial.
- Retrial on the murder and manslaughter charges was not barred because the convictions were reversed for trial error, not for legally insufficient evidence, and the admitted evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.
- The bailiff's communication did not prejudice the firearm conviction because the jury had already unanimously returned its guilty verdict on that charge before the communication occurred.
- The district court did not clearly err in finding that the State's explanations for striking two African-American prospective jurors were race-neutral and that Floyd failed to prove purposeful discrimination.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial as to the firearm conviction because the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard the statements and the evidence supporting that conviction was overwhelming and uncontradicted.
Key quotations
“When jurors have questions regarding the case on trial, including questions regarding the potential duration of deliberations, the bailiff should refer such questions to the court pursuant to § 25-1116.” (828)
“We determine that the communication could have pressured the average juror to change his or her vote in order to avoid protracted deliberations.” (830)
“AFFIRMED IN PART, AND IN PART REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.” (834)
Factual background
Floyd was charged in connection with the shooting death of Destiny Davis, who was pregnant, and the wounding of two other people. During deliberations, the jury initially reported an 11-to-1 split on the murder and manslaughter charges, while it had reached a unanimous guilty verdict on the firearm charge. After the court ordered further deliberations, a bailiff told jurors that deliberations could continue for the rest of the week or until Friday and, according to one version, that the judge would keep sending them back until they reached unanimity. The jury later returned unanimous guilty verdicts on all counts, and the trial court denied Floyd's new-trial motion based on the bailiff's communication.
Procedural history
A Douglas County District Court jury convicted Floyd on all three charges. The district court denied his motions for mistrial and new trial and imposed life imprisonment for murder, a consecutive 20-to-20-year sentence for manslaughter, and a concurrent 20-to-20-year sentence for felon in possession of a firearm. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the firearm conviction and sentence, but reversed the murder and manslaughter convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Reverse the convictions for first degree murder and manslaughter of an unborn child and remand for a new trial on those charges. Affirm the conviction and 20-to-20-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.