State v. S. Andersen

Summary

The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial after a legal assistant commented on critical surveillance footage while the jury was deliberating. The comment constituted third-party misconduct that created a threshold showing of prejudice, requiring either a mistrial or a jury inquiry capable of rebutting the presumption of prejudice. The convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial on all counts, and retrial was not barred by double jeopardy because the record did not show intentional misconduct designed to provoke the mistrial motion.