Dumas v. State, 2 Div. 524
| Decision Date | 27 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 524 |
| Citation | 491 So.2d 1083 |
| Parties | Daniel DUMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
V. Wylynn Gilmore-Phillippi, Camden, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Tommie Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Daniel Dumas, was convicted for the offense of manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. For the reasons outlined below, the appellant's conviction and sentence are hereby reversed and the case remanded.
The appellant was indicted by the Wilcox County Grand Jury for "intentionally causing the death of another person, Jessie James White, by shooting him with a shotgun." He was tried by a duly sworn jury and found guilty as charged. Following the trial, three jurors informed the trial judge that their "verdict was not [their] individual verdict but ... was something agreed on by a majority." Shortly thereafter, the court held a hearing regarding the allegations that their verdict was influenced by another juror who presented extraneous information concerning the appellant which had not been offered into evidence. At the hearing, the three jurors testified that while in jury deliberations, one of the jurors discussed the fact that he had known the appellant since he was a young boy and that he had always been a "bad" boy and that he had always been in trouble. They further testified that the same juror informed the other jurors that he believed the present killing was a "revenge killing" to get back at the victim's family because the victim's brother had previously shot and killed one of the appellant's brothers. All three jurors testified that this extraneous information influenced their verdict.
Thereafter, a sentencing hearing was held and the appellant was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. His motion for a new trial was denied for his failure to file the motion within the sixty-day period allowed under Rule 13(d) of the Temporary Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error in denying his motion for a new trial. He alleges that prejudice resulted from the failure of one of the jurors to answer both the court's and counsel's questions on voir dire. Additionally, he claims this juror subsequently presented extraneous material which had not been offered into evidence to the jury during deliberations.
During voir dire of the prospective jurors, the court asked the following questions:
The prosecutor asked the prospective jurors the following:
"Q: Is there anybody here that knows Daniel, seated at the table with Mr. Gilmore? He lives in the Kimbrough area. Does anybody here know him?
(PJ Ford responded: I've lived in the adjoining community.)
The defense counsel then asked the prospective jurors the following questions:
The appellant alleges that the testimony of three of the jurors at the hearing indicates that their verdict was influenced by the extraneous information regarding the appellant's childhood and family history. Appellant contends that the resulting prejudice is attributable to the failure of that juror to respond appropriately to voir dire questions. We agree. The rule is well settled that:
Watson v. State, 398 So.2d 320, 330 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), citing Beauregard v. State, 372 So.2d 37, 41 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 44 (Ala.1979).
Further, the rule regarding motions for new trials based on jury challenges has been stated in Williams v. State, 342 So.2d 1328, 1329 (Ala.1977).
"A motion challenging the composition of a grand jury, petit jury, or qualifications of individual jurors, filed after the commencement of trial, must allege, and proof must show that grounds for the motion were not known to the defendant before he went to trial, or that he could not have known them by exercising due diligence." Williams, supra; also see Smiley v. State, 371 So.2d 469 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).
In the present case, the appellant could not have eradicated the resulting prejudice prior to trial by the "exercise of due diligence." Williams, supra. The extraneous information offered by the juror regarding the appellant's background would have gone unnoticed but for the three jurors coming forth after the jury's verdict had been reached. It is apparent that the "extraneous" material concerning the appellant's childhood and family life did influence the votes of at least three of the jurors.
The general rule regarding jury deliberation is that the verdict of a jury cannot be impeached by an affidavit or testimony of a juror as to what was said among the jurors during deliberations. Taylor v. State, 18 Ala.App. 466, 93 So. 78 (1922); Martin v. State, 22 Ala.App. 154, 113 So. 602 (1926); Lackey v. Lackey, 262 Ala. 45, 55-56, 76 So.2d 761 (1954); Law v. State, 407 So.2d 572, 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). A recognized exception to that rule has been recognized when "extrinsic evidence" or evidence as to extraneous facts has been improperly communicated to the jury. Taylor, supra; Martin, supra. This requirement is provided for in § 12-16-7, Code of Alabama (1975), which states:
"If a juror has personal knowledge respecting any fact in controversy, he must declare it in open court during the trial; and if during the retirement of the jury a juror declares a fact as of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Trump v. Hott
...646 (1971); Downey v. Peyton, 451 F.2d 236 (4th Cir.1971); United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 865 (5th Cir.1975); Dumas v. State, 491 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 1989); State v. Arnold, 466 So.2d 520 (La.App.), writ denied, 470 So.2d 124 (La.1985); ......
-
State v. Freeman
...burden' on the defendant." 505 So.2d at 1264. See Ex parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953 (Ala.1984). See also Gilbert, supra; Dumas v. State, 491 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The juror in this case not only served on the jury but was elected foreman. In addition, the juror testified during the evid......
-
McCray v. State
...following his conviction. A hearing was held on this motion, and testimony was taken from five of the former jurors. See Dumas v. State, 491 So.2d 1083 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (jurors may not be required to disclose the nature of their deliberations, except where the jurors have considered extran......
-
Gold Kist, Inc. v. Tedder
...of the Jury to act without the evidence but that it might have unlawfully influenced [a juror and the verdict].' Dumas v. State, 491 So.2d 1083, [at 1086 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) ]. "It is therefore ADJUDGED that the judgment entered hereon on the 18th day of August, 1989, is hereby set aside, a n......