Easler v. State

• Decision Date: 08 February 2019
• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1371
• Citation: 118 N.E.3d 84
• Parties: Tracie EASLER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

118 N.E.3d 84

Tracie EASLER, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1371

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED February 8, 2019

Attorney for Appellant: Talisha Griffin, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Caryn N. Szyper, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Riley, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Tracie Easler (Easler), appeals her conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, as a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2(a) & (b).

[2] We affirm.

ISSUES

[3] Easler presents this court with two issues on appeal, which we restate as:

(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant Easler's request to question a member of the venire after the member divulged information relevant for the voir dire ; and

(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Easler's request to remove a juror for cause.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] Around 3:00 p.m. on July 6, 2017, emergency medical services (EMS) and firefighters were dispatched to 38th Street and Shadeland on a report of an unconscious person behind the wheel of an SUV. When the first responders arrived at the scene, they found the vehicle still running and in gear as it sat in the turn lane. The driver, later identified as Easler, had her head down and hands in her lap. Easler remained unresponsive as EMS personnel knocked on the window and yelled. While they were trying to gain Easler's attention, the SUV started to roll into the intersection of 38th and Shadeland. Firefighters quickly reacted and broke the driver's side window; they reached inside the vehicle and shifted it into park. Easler regained consciousness and EMS personnel helped her out of the vehicle.

[5] Officer Eric Rosenbaum (Officer Rosenbaum) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department consulted with the EMS personnel and was advised that Easler might be impaired. When speaking with Easler, Officer Rosenbaum learned that she had just left a funeral and was on her way home. She informed the officer that she was having a rough week and had consumed two shots earlier that day. While Officer Rosenbaum was speaking with Easler, he noticed Easler's speech was slurred and there was a delay in her responses to his questions. He observed that she had glassy, red eyes. Believing Easler to be under the influence of alcohol, Officer Rosenbaum contacted a DUI officer.

[6] Officer Nickolas Smith (Officer Smith), after noticing Easler swaying back and forth, administered three field sobriety tests. Easler failed all three tests. Easler consented to a blood draw, and forensic testing of her blood revealed that she had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.256 to 0.283 grams per 100 milliliters of blood.

[7] On July 7, 2017, the State filed an Information, charging Easler with Count I, operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, as a Class A misdemeanor; and Count II, operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to .15% or more, as a Class A misdemeanor. On April 30, 2018, the trial court conducted a jury trial. Prior to commencing voir dire , the trial court swore in the prospective jurors and informed them of the charges. After voir dire was conducted and both parties had exercised their peremptory strikes, six individuals were selected to sit on the jury. When the trial court called out the six jurors' names, Juror 4 asked the trial court, "Are those—they're not going to ask us any more questions that are relevant?" (Supplemental Transcript, p. 29). The trial court denied that there were more questions and removed the jurors to the jury room.

[8] After an alternate was selected, the trial court informed the parties that Juror 4 had written a note to the court, which stated,

A family member was killed by a drunk driver. It was before I was born. But altered my family, and my family dynamic. I can be a jury member but thought it relevant to disclose.

(Suppl. Tr. p. 35). After the trial court read the letter, defense counsel asked to "bring her out, and question her as to whether she would be fair and impartial." (Suppl. Tr. p. 35). The trial court disregarded defense counsel's request and stated, "Oh, okay. So I just thought I'd share that with you, okay. But I don't think there's anything else we can do. All right." (Suppl. Tr. p. 36).

[9] After the remaining prospective jurors were released and had exited the courtroom, the trial court again noted for the record Juror 4's letter and confirmed the seating of an alternate juror. Defense counsel then requested to bring up one more thing for the record. The following colloquy occurred:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just in looking at her juror questionnaire, there's parts that discuss victims of crimes and what not. [S]he said that her grandmother was the victim of murder, but, she did not disclose anything else. So, whether she disclosed anything besides the fact that [ ] violent crimes made her partial to the victim—so, and I'm not completely sure, that she was completely—forthcoming on her questionnaire. But, that—I just wanted to put that on the record.

[TRIAL COURT]: [ ] All right, State, what's going on?

[STATE]: [M]y response is that I do believe that she was forthcoming. Looking at the comment under "Your Ability to Serve as a Juror"—her comment was to - - Can you be a fair and impartial juror in a criminal trial?" She has stated potentially—depends on nature, violent crimes tend to be—tend to make me partially a victim because I've seen effect in families. [T]his echoes her comment to the court; and furthermore, this is potentially depends on nature, comma [sic]. I think that's broader than just pending it down to violent crimes. So I think there was enough, [ ], the juror being forthcoming in this questionnaire. [A]nd furthermore in the comment to the court, she did say that she could be fair and impartial. But that she wanted to disclose this so everybody was made aware in particular.

[TRIAL COURT]: Okay. All right. So, I'm not even quite sure there was even a motion before this court. Was there a motion?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, I would—I'd ask that she be excluded as a juror, but for not being forthcoming on the questionnaire in terms of [ ] being picked.

[TRIAL COURT]: All right, motion denied. Court finds the same, that [ ] in her questionnaire she said can you be fair and impartial. And she said possibly. It depends on the nature [ ] of the offense; and so I mean that's something that could have been explored during voir dire process. And for whatever reason, you know, it wasn't explored to such a fine detail. So, I also think that even in my opening remarks I talk about we're obtaining a fair and impartial jury for this particular case. I also [ ] think within the first two (2) minutes of my greeting, I told them, what this case was about. [S]o again, I think that's something that could have been explored by the attorneys on voir dire . So, court's going to find that, --and she didn't say that she couldn't be fair and—she couldn't be fair. So, therefore, [ ], she'll remain as Juror Number Four (4). [ ]

(Suppl. Tr. pp. 37-39).

[10] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Easler guilty as charged; however, the trial court merged Count II into Count I and entered judgment of conviction on operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor. On May 14, 2018, the trial court sentenced Easler to 365 days, with 120 days executed in the Marion County Community Corrections' home detention and 245 days suspended to supervised probation.

[11] Easler now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Hearing Request

[12] "The right to trial before an impartial jury is a cornerstone of our justice system." Whiting v. State , 969 N.E.2d 24, 28 (Ind. 2012). Because "the presence of even one biased juror on the jury is structural error requiring a new trial," Easler maintains that, when confronted with evidence of potential juror bias, a trial court should hold a hearing to ensure a defendant's rights are protected. See id. Easler contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her request to further question Juror 4, when her note to the trial court revealed a potential bias. Generally, proof that a juror was biased against the defendant or lied on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial. Lopez v. State , 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1130 (Ind. 1988). A defendant seeking a hearing on juror misconduct must first present some specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased. Id. In order to warrant a new trial, there must be a showing that the misconduct was gross, and that it probably harmed the defendant. Id. The issue of juror misconduct is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Id.

[13] Pointing to the letter written by Juror 4, Easler interprets the writing as an indication of a potential bias and claims that Juror 4 must therefore have engaged in juror misconduct by failing to provide full and truthful answers on her questionnaire.¹ Easler points out that Juror 4 only stated on her questionnaire that her grandmother had been a victim of murder and violent crimes made her partial to the victim, but she did not disclose anything else. Easler maintains that upon being notified that a member of Juror 4's family was killed by a drunk driver, new concerns arose that the Juror may have been referring to her grandmother and had failed to disclose that. Accordingly, Easler asserts that she was entitled to a hearing to further explore Juror 4's potential bias.

[14] In support of her argument that a hearing should have been conducted, Easler relies on Stevens v. State , 265 Ind. 396, 357 N.E.2d 245 (1976), and Barnes v. State , 263 Ind. 320, 330 N.E.2d 743 (1975). In Stevens and Barnes , the parties discovered that jurors had either inaccurately responded...