 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Wadle1/30/2003
urate. Nor is this the first time a juror has looked to the Internet for information during deliberations. See People v. Kriho, 996 P.2d 158 (Colo. App. 1999). In view of the problems and dangers associated with the unsupervised use of the Internet, trial courts should emphasize that jurors should not consult the Internet, or any other extraneous materials, at any time during the trial, including during deliberations.
In summary, we discern a reasonable possibility that the introduction of extraneous information about Paxil, in direct violation of the court's denial of the same request by the jury, may well have influenced the verdict. See Wiser v. People, supra, 732 P.2d at 1143; T.S. v. G.G., supra.
Accordingly, we conclude the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining that the verdict would not have been affected by the information, and we remand for a new trial on that basis.
IV.
In view of our conclusion, we need not address defendant's related contention that a new trial also is required because juror R imparted specialized knowledge to the jury that turned out to be erroneous and that also tainted the verdict. Similarly, the other issues raised by defendant are unlikely to arise on retrial, and we need not address them.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
JUDGE TAUBMAN and JUDGE WEBB concur.
|