Cited by

¶18 in which a dismissed alternate juror left a note on another juror’s windshield that expressed the alternate juror’s opinion that the defendant was guilty.

“[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” (emphasis removed).

¶13 We also deem Serrano’s misplaced.

See, 560 (1994) (holding evidentiary hearing or mistrial necessary after alternate juror left note on juror’s car reading “He’s guilty” or “My vote is guilty”).

A jury’s verdict “must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial,” a requirement that “goes to the fundamental integrity of all that is embraced in the constitutional concept of trial by jury.” (internal quotation and citations omitted) (emphasis added).

State v. (Rudy R.) Miller

“Juror misconduct warrants a new trial only if ‘the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.’” ¶ 58 (2004) (emphasis omitted) ().

(“juror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts”).

7 STATE v. TEJEDA Decision of the Court “[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.”

P. 24.1(c)(3); (holding prejudice may be “actual” or 3 Sernas cites an article from the Journal of the American Medical Association to define the symptoms of dementia and asserts that a person with dementia should be precluded from jury service.

P. 32.1(a) (conviction obtained in violation of United States or Arizona Constitution); ¶ 115 (2009) (“[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial [only] if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” (alteration in original) ()); ¶ 49 (2011).

“[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” (emphasis and citation omitted).

¶16 “[J]uror misconduct warrants a new trial if the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” ().

Absent material revision after the date of an alleged offense, we cite a statute's current version.

Adroit Supply Co. v. Elec.

3 STATE v. WARE Decision of the Court prejudice, or that “prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.” (emphasis and citation omitted); ¶ 6 (App. 2010) (“[O]nce a defendant shows the jury received and consulted extraneous information, prejudice must be presumed and a new trial must be granted unless the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt the information did not

“Judges must respond to a claim of juror misconduct in a manner ‘commensurate with [its] severity.’” Payne, 314 P.3d at 1266, (alteration in Payne).

See Perez, 187 Ariz. at 357 n. 3, 929 P.2d at 1305 n. 3 (superior court abused discretion in limiting evidentiary hearing to exclude facts necessary to determining prejudice); , (superior court abused discretion by refusing to conduct evidentiary hearing after learning one juror received note from alternate regarding alternate’s belief about defendant’s guilt).

¶103 Judges must respond to a claim of juror misconduct in a manner “commensurate with [its] severity.”

¶12 Juror misconduct necessitates “a new trial only if ‘the defense shows actual prejudice or if prejudice may be fairly presumed from the facts.’” State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, 208 ¶ 58, ( ) (emphasis and internal citation omitted).