Youngstown Daily Legal News

Court did not mishandle case in which juror was dismissed for investigating defendant

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to Legal News
Published: June 21, 2012

A 10th District Court of Appeals panel recently ruled that a man was not deprived of a fair trial or an impartial jury as a result of a juror being dismissed for looking up information about the defendant’s prior convictions.

The three-judge panel rejected Wayne Sparks’ claims that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas did not properly handle a problem when one juror reported that another juror had looked up information about Sparks outside of the courtroom and shared it with the reporting juror using his smartphone.

“Upon review, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s handling of the matter deprived him of the right to an impartial jury or a fair trial,” 10th District Presiding Judge Susan Brown wrote for the court.

Case summary details that on Nov. 21, 2010 Sparks and a man with a shotgun forced their way into Carlos Carter’s house on Kingshill Drive in Columbus.

The men pushed Carter and his friend to the ground and took money from their pockets before leaving.

At a trial in June 2011, Carter, his friend and his girlfriend, who had been hiding in the basement during the robbery, testified that Sparks had taken the money and showed no hesitation when the man with the gun told him to search their pockets.

Sparks testified that he did not know who the man was. He claimed the man had come up behind him on Carter’s porch and told Sparks he was there to buy drugs.

Sparks also stated that the man pointed the gun at him and ordered him to take the money.

During the trial process one of the jurors accessed Sparks’ criminal record outside the court and shared some of the information with another juror, case summary states. The juror with whom he shared it informed the bailiff and the court talked to the reporting juror away from the rest of the jurors.

The reporting juror said the other juror, C.K., approached him and showed him something on C.K.’s phone that said Sparks had been in legal trouble 37 times prior to this case. During questioning the reporting juror said he could set aside that information and continue.

The defense counsel and Sparks agreed that the reporting juror could remain. C.K. was dismissed and the rest of the jury reported that they had not received any information about the case outside of the trial itself.

The jury found Sparks guilty of aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping and having a weapon while under disability.

On appeal to the 10th District, Sparks contended he was denied a fair trial with an impartial jury because the jury was exposed to improper information from C.K.’s actions and that he was convicted against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The appellate panel found that after learning of C.K.’s actions, the trial court conducted further voir dire to ascertain what information the remaining jurors had gained. It held that because none of the jurors claimed to have received any information outside of the courtroom or from C.K., the trial court was not wrong to keep the remaining jurors.

“Here, the record on appeal does not support appellant’s claim of uncertainty as to how many jurors may have been exposed to this information. Rather there is no evidence suggesting that any jurors, other than the reporting juror and C.K. (who was excused from the panel), became aware of appellant’s past criminal record,” Brown stated.

Finding no problems existed within the jury, the judges rejected Sparks’ first assignment of error.

The judges also held that it was within the jury’s right to find Carter’s testimony credible despite Sparks’ testimony that Carter had sold drugs in the past. They stated that because there were multiple witness testimonies that the jury could have chosen to believe, it had not clearly lost its way and the conviction was supported by the manifest weight of the evidence.

“Having found that the convictions are supported by sufficient evidence and that they are not against the manifest weight of the evidence, appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled,” Brown stated.

“Based upon the foregoing, appellant’s first and second assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.”

Fellow 10th District judges Peggy Bryant and William Klatt joined Brown to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Sparks, case No. 2012-Ohio-2653.

[Back]