 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hantman12/14/1989
The state files this petition for special action in connection with the trial court's granting of defendant Salvador Garcia Prado's motion for new trial based upon juror misconduct. Because the impeachment of the jury's verdict resulted from impermissible intrusion into the jury's mental processes, we accept jurisdiction and grant relief.
FACTS
In June 1989, defendant Salvador Garcia Prado stood trial on four counts of unlawful sale of a narcotic drug. The jury returned verdicts finding Prado guilty on all four counts. When the jury was polled, unanimity was established. Thereafter, the trial court told the jury:
You did what you felt was right and you cannot in any way get yourselves upset or feeling badly about whatever decision you've made.
As it is currently alleged, I don't have much choice. Under Arizona law there's mandatory sentencing. And my understanding of the range of sentencing is the presumptive sentence of 15.5 years, minimum of 14 years and maximum of 28
years is the range I'll be looking at, and I have discretion only within those parameters.
Is it flat time, day for day?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, your honor.
THE COURT: So the least I can give Mr. Prado is 14 years flat time presently alleged. It depends on whether each count will be alleged as a prior or pursued in that regard.
THE COURT: I tell the jury what the sentencing date is and the range of sentencing since you've sat here for two days and I think that jurors like to know what options there are.
Is that a fair -- do you all understand that? Does that offend anybody? Is anybody upset that I told you what the range of sentencing is?
You are all comfortable with that.
After contacting the jurors regarding their verdicts, defense counsel filed a motion for new trial based upon jury misconduct. At the evidentiary hearing the jury foreperson and a second juror testified. Over the prosecutor's repeated objection that defense counsel was delving into the mental processes of the jury's deliberations, defense counsel questioned the jurors.
At one point during the evidentiary hearing, the foreperson testified:
When I found out what the minimum prison time was for the crime, I felt the defendant in this case here was guilty of the crime, but I did not believe that it warranted that lengthy of a sentence, as an awful lot of criminals are out in much shorter time, and I just felt like I thought the court ought to be a little bit more compassionate here. That's why I am here.
On cross-examination, the foreperson testified that there was never any doubt in his mind regarding Prado's guilt and that his only concern was the severity of the sentence which the court would be required to impose.
Over the prosecutor's objections, the second juror testified that she felt "pressured" into voting guilty, that she felt that Prado had been entrapped, that other jurors discussed that if Prado was found not guilty he might sell drugs to children, and, regarding punishment, that some jurors discussed the fact that this was probably Prado's first offense.
The trial court granted Prado's motion for new trial, stating in part:
[The Juror] also testified to inappropriate subjects discussed by the jury during deliberations, which influenced their decision -- to wit, the fact that the defendant would in all likelihood get probation (inappropriate discussion of punishment despite strict instructions to the contrary), the fact that the juror would not like the defendant t
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|