State v. Franklin
| Decision Date | 17 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 76506,76506 |
| Citation | 264 Kan. 496,958 P.2d 611 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Adrian M. FRANKLIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A juror may not impeach his or her verdict on any ground inherent in the verdict itself or divulge what considerations influenced him or her in arriving at the verdict. Inquiry may be made into the extrinsic matters of physical facts, conditions, or occurrences of juror misconduct, either within or without the jury room, which were material to the issues being determined.
2. In an appeal in a criminal case from the denial of a motion for new trial based upon alleged jury misconduct that deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to trial by jury, the record is examined and it is held: (1) The jury misconduct alleged herein was an improper attempt to impeach the verdict by juror testimony as to matters inherent in the verdict itself, and the trial Mark T. Schoenhofer, argued the cause, and Kurt P. Kerns, Wichita, was with him on the brief, for appellant.
court did not err in so holding; and (2) the denial of the motion for new trial does not constitute an abuse of judicial discretion.
Doyle Baker, Assistant District Attorney, argued the cause, and Nola Foulston, District Attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, were with him on the brief, for appellee.
Adrian Franklin was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (K.S.A.21-3403), a severity level 3 person felony, and sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment. He appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial which was predicated upon a claim that the jury had failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
The underlying facts of the crime are not involved in the issue presented and will be highly summarized. On June 4, 1995, a confrontation occurred between defendant and the victim, Namon Goff, in a Wichita restaurant. The two men left the restaurant and the incident continued in the parking lot. As the victim was entering his car, defendant shot him three times, once in the back of the head, once in the back of the shoulder, and once in the lower back. Defendant was charged with second-degree murder. He claimed to have shot the victim in self-defense.
The jury was instructed on the charged crime of intentional second-degree murder as well as the lesser included offenses of unintentional second-degree murder and voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The foreperson marked and signed the verdict form stating, "Guilty of voluntary manslaughter." No irregularities in the execution of the verdict form are claimed. After the verdict was announced, the jury was polled and each juror affirmatively stated that this was his or her verdict.
A week after the verdict had been returned, defendant filed a motion for a new trial asserting that a juror had advised defense counsel that there had been confusion over the instructions. At the hearing, two jurors were called as witnesses (one of whom was the foreperson). The testimony of a third juror was proffered by the defense. The State objected to the calling of the jurors as being violative of the limitations set forth in K.S.A. 60-441. The court overruled the objection "to allow the defendant to make his record."
Defendant contends the verdict was not unanimous because foreperson Burns and juror Foster testified they believed the instruction required the jury to reach a unanimous verdict. They felt the defendant was not guilty, as he had acted in self-defense. As their position was the minority view, they agreed to the guilty verdict on the voluntary manslaughter lesser included offense in order to reach the required unanimous verdict. The State proffered the testimony of another juror who would testify that there was some confusion over the instructions, but "overall ... they were not a stumbling block."
At the conclusion of the hearing, upon review of all 19 jury instructions, the trial court denied the motion, finding no error requiring a new trial. Although it had permitted defense counsel to make a record of the jurors' testimony, the court held that pursuant to K.S.A. 60-441, it was not proper to "go behind the verdict of the jury to test the thought processes of the jury in arriving at that verdict." The court found that the "verdict was within the realm of the law and the evidence" and that "[t]here was under the evidence reasonable grounds for the jury to reach the conclusion that was reached."
The granting of a new trial is a matter which lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and appellate review of a trial court's decision denying a new trial is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Griffin, 262 Kan. 698, Syl. p 2, 941 P.2d 941 (1997).
Judicial discretion is abused when judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only when no reasonable
person would take the view adopted by the trial court. If reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Stallings, 262 Kan. 721, 726, 942 P.2d 11 (1997).
Two statutes are involved in the issue presented. K.S.A. 60-441 provides:
"Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict or an indictment no evidence shall be received to show the effect of any statement, conduct, event or condition upon the mind of a juror as influencing him or her to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined."
K.S.A. 60-444(a) provides:
"This article shall not be construed to ... exempt a juror from testifying as a witness to conditions or occurrences either within or outside of the jury room having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict or the indictment, except as expressly limited by K.S.A. 60-441...."
The basic question presented is whether the trial court correctly held that the testimony elicited as to confusion over the instructions was inquiry into the mental processes of the jurors in the reaching of the verdict as prohibited by K.S.A. 60-441 or whether such testimony was juror misconduct having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict as permitted by K.S.A. 60-444(a).
In State v. Mitchell, 234 Kan. 185, 672 P.2d 1 (1983), we held K.S.A. 60-441 was controlling. In Mitchell, the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery. While six witnesses were customers at the nightclub the night this robbery occurred, only the bartender gave a positive identification of the defendant as the robber. The evening after the trial was concluded, defense counsel taped an interview with one of the jurors in the trial. This juror testified about discussions among the jurors during their deliberations. A subsequent affidavit, drawn up by the defendant, alleged three instances of misconduct, including that the verdict rendered was not this juror's verdict and therefore not a unanimous verdict. The trial court ruled that the affidavit was not admissible because it delved into the mind of the juror, which is prohibited by K.S.A. 60-441.
On appeal, we agreed and affirmed the conviction, stating:
In Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgt. Co., 253 Kan. 452, 856 P.2d 906 (1993), the appellant nightclub argued that a new trial was warranted because the jury disregarded the trial court's instructions. The nightclub attempted to prove that the jury was confused about the court's instructions on fault and that the jury disregarded the instructions of the court concerning damages. The nightclub presented an affidavit from Mr. Buford, the jury We held:
foreperson, stating that the jury did not understand the instructions and found them confusing and that, absent this confusion, the verdict would have been different.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
...permitted by K.S.A. 60-444(a) is of juror misconduct having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict. See State v. Franklin, 264 Kan. 496, 498-99, 958 P.2d 611 (1998). In Franklin, after an extensive review of the relevant case law, the court summarized it as follows: "A juror may ......
-
State v. Kleypas
...addition. However, absent such need, PIK instructions and recommendations should be followed. [Citation omitted.]." State v. Franklin, 264 Kan. 496, 505, 958 P.2d 611 (1998). Kleypas argues that while the instruction introduces the concept of exercising mercy to the jury, it does so in a le......
-
State v. Seba
...52.010 (2015 Supp.) provided the district court with a recommended model instruction defining “intentionally.” See State v. Franklin , 264 Kan. 496, 505, 958 P.2d 611 (1998) (use of PIK instructions is recommended). This instruction contemplated two potential versions:“A defendant acts inte......
-
Williams v. Lawton
...test the truth or veracity of the answers." Kincaid v. Wade, 196 Kan. 174, 178, 410 P.2d 333 (1966), as quoted in State v. Franklin, 264 Kan. 496, 499, 958 P.2d 611 (1998). Our Supreme Court has summarized these policy considerations as "It is a long established and generally accepted doctr......