State v. Madren

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether a trial court erred by denying motions for mistrial and new trial after an alternate juror remained with the jury during approximately the first hour of deliberations. The court reaffirmed that the alternate juror’s presence violates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury but creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice rather than prejudice per se. Because the defendant’s motion for new trial alleged facts materially affecting a substantial right, the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the presumption of prejudice was rebutted.

Holdings

1. The presence of an alternate juror during the deliberations of the 12 regular jurors violates the defendant's federal and state constitutional rights to a fair and impartial trial.
2. The unauthorized presence of an alternate juror during deliberations creates a rebuttable presumption of prejudice subject to harmless-error analysis; it does not require reversal per se.
3. When a motion for new trial and supporting documents allege facts that, if true, would materially affect the defendant's substantial rights, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2102(2) imposes a mandatory duty on the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make findings of fact and law.
4. An instruction directing the jury to begin deliberations anew does not eliminate the district court's duty to conduct an evidentiary hearing when an alternate juror was mistakenly permitted to participate in deliberations and the extent of the alternate's influence is unknown.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the unauthorized presence of an alternate juror during jury deliberations violated Madren's constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury.
2. Whether the presence of the alternate created a rebuttable presumption of prejudice subject to harmless-error analysis or required reversal per se.
3. Whether the district court was required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2102(2) to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Madren's motion for a new trial.
4. Whether the district court's instruction that the jury begin deliberations anew adequately cured the violation without an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded