 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. TITUS3/14/1997
A Fort Yukon jury found John Titus guilty of first-degree sexual assault. In the week following this verdict, Titus and a defense investigator interviewed several jurors, asking them why they had voted to convict. Based on these interviews, Titus filed a motion for a new trial in which he asserted that the jurors had improperly considered matters outside the evidence during their deliberations.
Superior Court Judge Mary E. Greene held a hearing on this motion. At this hearing, several jurors testified concerning statements that various jurors had made during deliberations. Based on the testimony of these jurors, Judge Greene concluded that Titus's jury had discussed matters outside the evidence — specifically, the possibility that Titus had been drunk during the episode litigated at his trial, as well as Titus's reputation for committing antisocial acts when he was drunk. Because the jury had discussed these matters, Judge Greene ruled that Titus was entitled to a new trial. The State now appeals Judge Greene's ruling.
The main question presented in this appeal is whether Judge Greene was authorized to receive affidavits and take testimony concerning the details of the jury's deliberations. As we explain in more detail below, we conclude that Alaska Evidence Rule 606(b) barred the superior court from considering the affidavits and the testimony offered at the hearing. Thus, the superior court should have denied Titus's motion for a new trial.
Facts of the case
A Fairbanks grand jury indicted John Titus for first-degree sexual assault, AS 11.41.410(a). The crime was alleged to have occurred in the village of Venetie. Under Alaska Criminal Rule 18(e), Titus was entitled to ask the superior court to hold his trial in the locality nearest Venetie that had the facilities to accommodate a felony trial. In Titus's case, that locality was Fort Yukon. See Alaska Criminal Rule 18(b) and Alaska Administrative Bulletin 27 (as amended effective December 13, 1993).
Fort Yukon is a town of approximately 750 inhabitants. Titus was well-known in Fort Yukon. At the time of this offense, he was the village chief in nearby Venetie, and he was a member of the Yukon Flats Regional Board of Education. In addition, Titus was a publicly-acknowledged recovering alcoholic who was active in the local Native sobriety movement.
Apparently believing that a Fort Yukon jury would be more favorably inclined toward him than a Fairbanks jury, Titus asked to have his trial held in Fort Yukon. The State opposed this request precisely because Titus was so well-known in Fort Yukon, and for the additional reason that the case had generated significant publicity in Fort Yukon. Over the State's objection, the superior court granted Titus's request.
Jury selection began on March 7, 1994. It lasted almost two days. Of 48 prospective jurors, 21 were excused for cause. Several of the jurors excused for cause indicated that, because of their knowledge of Titus and/or their association with him, they would be biased against the State and would likely not vote for conviction. Titus exercised only seven of the ten peremptory challenges allowed to him under Alaska Criminal Rule 24(d). Of the twelve jurors ultimately selected to try Titus, all but one either knew Titus personally or knew of Titus and had heard about the case prior to trial. Four of the jurors were employees of the local school district. (As noted above, Titus was a member of the regional Board of Education.)
At the end of the first day of jury selection, and again at the end of the second day, the State asked the superior court to move the case back to Fairbanks. The prosecutor argued that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|