A jury found Robert David Vaughn guilty of burglary. Vaughn appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by engaging in an improper “ex parte” communication with the jury. Because we conclude that Vaughn was deprived of his constitutional right to the courts when he was involuntarily absent during certain communications between the trial court and the jurors, we reverse. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the record shows that after the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court noted on the record that the jurors had asked the bailiff if they could speak to “a detective.” The court directed that, “without knowing exactly what is going on, I am going to clear the courtroom of everyone except the attorneys and court-related personnel. So, I would ask if you all would, if the defendant would step out.”
After Vaughn left the courtroom, the court advised the jury that his bailiff had reported that “some or all of the jurors had received phone calls concerning this case,” and invited the jurors to address the court. In response, four jurors stated that, during the early morning hours, they had received one or more hang-up telephone calls. The court excused the jury and discussed the calls with the attorneys and other court staff outside of Vaughn’s presence. The court then recalled the jurors and explained to them that his secretary and others at the courthouse had experienced similar phone calls and stated that it could be something as simple as some sort of equipment problem because of the storms or it could be, you know, something more than that. But I just need to find out from you if any of you feel like that because of what has happened that you feel like you could not be completely fair and impartial. I mean, obviously, we do not have any idea the source of the call or the ringing of the phone . . . Well, again, is there anyone, whether you received a call or not, that’s on the jury who feels like because of this you could not be completely fair and impartial to both sides Since none of us know the origin of that it could be something fairly simple that is just equipment related, as far as we know. All right, I hear no response, so I assume that all of you feel like you can be completely fair and impartial, regardless of the source of the problem. All right, let us bring the other folks back in and we will continue on, then. Although his attorney was present, Vaughn remained absent during the entire colloquy. There is no indication in the record that the court or anyone else informed him what was said after he returned to the courtroom. Thereafter, the jury found Vaughn guilty of burglary.
