MILL CREEK — The state Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated a Lynnwood man’s child rape conviction that an appeals court previously overturned due to concerns about one of the jurors who found him guilty.
Last year, the state Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that one juror’s statements showed Nathan Smith, now 41, was denied the “fundamental right of the accused” to a fair and impartial jury. Two years earlier, the jury had convicted him of first-degree child rape in the 2018 sexual assault of a boy in Mill Creek.
For the crime, Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Janice Ellis sentenced Smith to nine years in prison. The appeals court vacated that conviction in a 2-1 decision.
But in a unanimous ruling Thursday, state Supreme Court justices disagreed with their appellate colleagues.
At question was juror No. 11’s comments during jury selection. At one point, she said she might be inclined to agree with her fellow jurors if she wasn’t sure.
“I don’t think I would, like, fight really hard if I, like, was on the fence about it,” she told the attorneys on the case, saying she was “not a confrontational person.”
She noted if she was “100% very confident,” then her fellow jurors couldn’t convince her.
That juror also said she had a hardship related to her job at a small bakery. Being on the jury would deplete her leave time and hurt her finances, according to court papers.
Asked whether she would be distracted by her work situation, she responded, “probably not, although I will probably work all weekend, but I don’t know.
Before the trial, Smith moved to strike three jurors from the trial for cause. Judge Ellis denied all of the motions. Smith’s lawyers used “peremptory challenges” to excuse two of the jurors, but in doing so, exhausted the last of his challenges, and left Smith unable to excuse the juror No. 11.
In the appeals court ruling, the dissenting judge, Leonard Feldman, noted the 1991 state Supreme Court decision of State v. Noltie held that “equivocal answers alone do not require a juror to be removed when challenged for cause.” (An equivocal answer is one with two possible meanings.)
Feldman argued though the juror described herself as “not a confrontational person,” if she was “100% very confident,” she would not change her vote.
“Such equivocal statements — expressed in terms of possibility and not probability — do not require a trial court to excuse a prospective juror for cause,” Feldman wrote.
In her written opinion, Supreme Court Justice Debra Stephens agreed with Feldman.
“The juror, a layperson, made statements that cast some doubt on her ability to hold the State to its burden of proof, but these statements were equivocal,” Stephens wrote. “… Equivocations suggesting a mere possibility of bias are not, on their own, sufficient to demonstrate a probability of actual bias. As such, it was properly within the judge’s discretion — having considered the juror’s demeanor, affect, and sincerity—to conclude (the juror’s) answers reflected honest caution rather than actual bias.”
Officials from the Snohomish County prosecutor’s office and Smith’s appellate attorney didn’t respond to requests for comment on the ruling.
Jake Goldstein-Street: 425-339-3439; jake.goldstein-street@heraldnet.com; X: @GoldsteinStreet.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
