PEOPLE OF MI V WILMAR ANDERSON NASH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 4, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 226295
Cass Circuit Court
LC No. 99-009740-FC
WILMAR ANDERSON NASH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Talbot and E.R. Post*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct.
MCL 750.520b(1)(b). We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his
motion for a new trial based on jury misconduct. Defendant asserts that a juror failed to disclose
a similar incident involving her family, and that she received improper communications during
the trial.
This Court will review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for new trial for abuse of
discretion. People v Jones, 236 Mich App 396; 600 NW2d 652 (1999). Jurors are
presumptively competent and impartial, and the party alleging the disqualification bears the
burden of proving its existence. People v Johnson, 245 Mich App 243, 256; 631 NW2d 1
(2001). A juror’s promise to keep matters of her personal life separate from defendant’s case is
sufficient to protect defendant’s right to a fair trial. Id. When information potentially affecting a
juror’s ability to act impartially is discovered after the jury is sworn, defendant is entitled to
relief only if defendant was actually prejudiced by the presence of the juror, or the juror was
properly excusable for cause. People v Daoust, 228 Mich App 1, 9; 577 NW2d 179 (1998).
The juror was never asked about her family’s experience with similar sex crimes. Where
she swore that she could decide the case fairly based on the evidence, defendant’s right to a fair
trial was protected. Johnson, supra.
There is no showing that the trial court erred in finding that the juror did not bring
extrinsic evidence into the jury room. Although the juror may have committed misconduct by
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
discussing the case during the trial, there is no showing that her conduct prejudiced defendant’s
right to a trial before a fair and impartial jury. People v Fetterley, 229 Mich App 511, 544-545;
583 NW2d 199 (1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Edward R. Post
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
