AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted by a jury of criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact. Following the conviction, a juror, Willie Franco, approached the Defendant's trial attorney, expressing concerns that he was unduly pressured into reaching a guilty verdict as the lone dissenter during jury deliberations. This was his first experience as a juror.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not granting a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct, as one juror felt unconstitutionally pressured into reaching a verdict. Additionally, the Defendant sought to amend the docketing statement to add a new issue regarding ineffective counsel.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that Rule 11-606(B) of the Rules of Evidence precludes inquiry into the matters discussed during jury deliberations, thus the motion for a new trial should be denied.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in failing to grant a new trial based on alleged jury misconduct.
• Whether the Defendant’s counsel was ineffective, warranting an amendment to the docketing statement to add this new issue.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was denied.
• The Defendant’s convictions were affirmed.

Reasons

• JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The court found that the juror's concerns about being pressured into a guilty verdict related to the deliberation process and the persuasive effect of other jurors, which are matters a juror may not testify about under Rule 11-606(B). The Defendant's argument that the majority opinion of the jurors constituted inappropriate "outside influence" was not supported by any authority, and the court knew of none. The court also noted that the Defendant did not raise any constitutional concerns in the district court motion, and thus, these issues were not preserved for appeal. Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel, the court determined that the Defendant did not make a prima facie case on direct appeal because the discussions with trial counsel were not part of the record, and decisions made by trial counsel regarding witness testimony were considered trial tactics and strategy. The court concluded that the Defendant received a fair trial before an impartial jury, despite the concerns raised by juror Mr. Franco. Therefore, the court affirmed the Defendant's convictions and denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to add the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, noting that such a claim may be re-raised in a collateral habeas corpus proceeding.