On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, No. 02-11-2445.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Wefing, C.S. Fisher and Yannotti.
Defendant appeals from a trial court order entered following a remand hearing conducted pursuant to our opinion in State v. Walkings, 388 N.J. Super. 149 (App. Div. 2006). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.
The factual circumstances which led to the remand are set forth in our earlier opinion, and there is no need to repeat them here. In connection with the remand proceedings, the trial court took testimony from the juror who had initially contacted the prosecutor's office, the assistant prosecutor who received the telephone message left by that juror, and the investigator who called the juror and merely advised that someone from the court would be in contact with him.
On appeal, defendant raises one contention.
BECAUSE THE RECORD CREATED ON REMAND DOES NOT PROVIDE A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR THE REVIEWING COURT TO ASSESS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUROR'S CONCERNS, THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED OR, ALTERNATIVELY, THE MATTER REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
In light of that contention, we set forth at length the relevant portions of the juror's testimony on remand.
THE WITNESS: We had eleven jurors said we were pleading guilty. One man said no. And we did several pollings to find the same results. So the foreman I believe asks the man why he was saying no with the majority saying yes.
THE COURT: Let me stop you for a moment. I want to make sure you're recounting to me, not your recollection of what happened.
THE COURT: -- but the recollection of what you told ...