State v. Jojola, 140 N.M. 660

Summary

The New Mexico Supreme Court held that a private communication between a trial judge and a deliberating juror concerning the jury’s deliberations and views of the evidence violated Rule 5-610(D) NMRA. The improper communication triggered a presumption of prejudice that the State failed to rebut, requiring reversal of the conviction and a new trial.

Holdings

1. A private communication between the trial judge and a deliberating juror is an improper communication when its substance relates to the issues of the case, including the jury's deliberations, the inner workings of the jury room, or the jurors' views of the evidence.
2. An improper ex parte communication between a judge and juror gives rise to a presumption of prejudice, and the State bears the burden of rebutting that presumption.
3. The State failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the judge's improper communication, so reversal of Defendant's conviction and a new trial were warranted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial judge's private communication with a deliberating juror about the jury's disagreement, deliberations, and views of the evidence violated Rule 5-610(D) NMRA.
2. Whether an improper ex parte communication between a judge and juror creates a presumption of prejudice that the State must rebut.
3. Whether the State rebutted the presumption of prejudice arising from the trial judge's improper communication.

Disposition

affirmed