Shaun Michael James, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Shaun Michael James appeals his conviction of Level 6 felony conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his post-trial motion for mistrial, claiming that a juror failed to disclose during jury selection that her father had been a police officer. Concluding that James has failed to show reversible error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In early May 2025, the State charged James with robbery and battery in connection with an incident involving Zakary Taylor. Taylor was hesitant to speak with the police, but he ultimately cooperated and gave a statement.

[3] James was arrested and placed in the Wayne County Jail. He participated in several phone calls, all of which were recorded by jail officials. On May 13, James told his sister to tell “Darren” to contact Zak Taylor and “shake him up[.]” State's Ex. 1, at 30. Darren Griffith was in a long-term relationship with James's sister and considered James to be his brother.

[4] That same day, James spoke with his romantic partner, Lyndsay Brown. He told her he had something to say “without saying it.” State's Ex. 2, at 0:33. James told Brown to contact a “ruthless” person known as “D” or “Big D[.]” Id. at 1:48. He said to direct “Big D” to contact Taylor and “handle this.” Id. at 2:07. James later admitted that Big D was Griffith.

[5] On May 17, James and Brown had another phone conversation. She told him that something was about to happen in relation to the subject of their previous phone call. James told Brown to tell Big D not to mention him. Brown reiterated that something was happening as they were speaking. James told her not to discuss the matter further. State's Ex. 3, at 0:50.

[6] Also on May 17, Taylor and a friend stopped by a person's home in Richmond. Taylor went inside, and his friend stayed in the truck. Taylor heard a knock on the door, and the homeowner allowed Griffith to enter.

[7] Griffith told Taylor that he had told Taylor's friend that he was going to stab Taylor, but he changed his mind. Griffith also said, “I need you to go down there and change your statement and tell them that you were on Xanax and tell them that the statement was wrong.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 123. Taylor understood that Griffith was referring to his statement against James in the robbery case.

[8] Griffith was tense, and Taylor felt threatened. Taylor had a gun on his person, and Griffith said that he knew Taylor was armed. Taylor believed that Griffith would have physically attacked him if he had not been armed.

[9] On May 19, James and Brown spoke by phone for a third time. He began by reminding her to tell “Darren” to handle a certain issue. State's Ex. 4, at 0:03. He also said that if Taylor recanted his statement, he could go free. Brown said Darren had taken care of the matter and was “smart about” his approach to Taylor. Id. at 0:23.

[10] The State charged James with Level 6 felony conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice and also alleged that he was an habitual offender. At trial, the parties selected a six-person jury, including Juror Number 10. The jury determined that James was guilty of the Level 6 felony. He admitted to being an habitual offender.

[11] On the day after the jury reached its verdict, James moved the court to declare a mistrial due to juror misconduct. The court held an evidentiary hearing and denied his motion. Next, the court held a sentencing hearing and imposed a sentence of five and one-half years. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[12] James argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. We review the trial court's decision on a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. Juvinall v. State, 271 N.E.3d 144, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025). We will find an abuse of discretion when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Myers v. State, 887 N.E.2d 170, 194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

[13] “The right to a jury trial includes ‘a fair trial by a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.’ ” Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022, 1054 (Ind. 2007) (quoting Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 471 (1965)). “Generally, proof that a juror was biased against the defendant or lied on voir dire entitles the defendant to a new trial.” Lopez v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1130 (Ind. 1988). “To obtain a new trial based on a claim of juror misconduct, the defendant must demonstrate that the misconduct was gross and likely harmed the defendant.” Stephenson, 864 N.E.2d at 1055.

[14] The parties’ dispute focuses on the omissions of Juror Number 10 during the jury selection process. She was sixty-one years old. Her father had been an officer with the Richmond Police Department (“RPD”) for about twenty-five years. He had retired in 2000 and died in 2020 at around eighty years of age, while he was living in an assisted living facility.

[15] Before the jury panel was assembled in court, the panelists filled out a questionnaire. One of the questions was: “Have you or anyone in your household family ever worked for any of the following?” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 20. The questionnaire then provided a list of agencies, including law enforcement agencies. Juror Number 10 did not answer that question.

[16] During voir dire, James asked the panelists: “I don't remember – I don't know – anybody have law enforcement in their – in their background? Or have any relative that's in law enforcement?” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 74. Several panelists responded, but Juror Number 10 remained silent. After speaking with some of the panelists, James asked again, “anybody else have any law enforcement in their background?” Id. at 75. Juror Number 10 did not respond.

[17] Later, when asked about the presumption of innocence, Juror Number 10 agreed that James was innocent “until I hear the full testimonies of everyone.” Id. at 79. She also said that if the State failed to meet its burden of proof, she would vote “to find him not guilty.” Id. In addition, Juror Number 10 agreed that she “could be a fair and impartial juror[.]” Id. at 84.

[18] William L. Shake, who is an investigator for the Wayne County Public Defender's Office, was present for the trial. He had previously worked for the RPD. On the first day of trial, Shake recognized Juror Number 10's face but did not remember who she was. On the second day of trial, Juror Number 10 approached Shake in the courthouse foyer. She told him her name and reminded him that she was the daughter of a former RPD officer. Shake had worked with her father. In addition, Juror Number 10 had asked Shake to speak at her father's funeral and had given him some items that had belonged to her father. They did not discuss James’ case.

[19] We do not condone Juror Number 10's failure to respond to questions about relatives in law enforcement. She should have disclosed that her father was an officer so that the parties could have asked her whether that relationship would affect her impartiality. But the question in the written juror questionnaire referred to “household family,” Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 20, and Juror Number 10's lack of response was correct because her father was not a member of her household. And as for her lack of response to the oral questions during jury selection, her father had retired from law enforcement twenty-five years before James’ trial, and he had been dead for a significant period of time. We cannot conclude that Juror Number 10's failure to respond amounted to gross misconduct.

[20] In addition, we cannot conclude that Juror Number 10's omissions likely harmed James. The State presented ample evidence that James conspired to commit Level 6 felony obstruction of justice and that one of his co-conspirators took a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. Specifically, James's sister or romantic partner asked Griffith to meet with Taylor to induce him to change his story, and Griffith did so. The evidence included recordings of James's phone calls, in which he said that Taylor needed to be “shake[n] up.” State's Ex. 1, at 30. Based upon this extensive evidence, there is little likelihood that Juror Number 10's failure to disclose her deceased father's job affected the verdict. See Warner v. State, 773 N.E.2d 239, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court did not err in denying mistrial motion alleging juror misconduct; juror should not have withheld that a family member had been a victim of a crime, but Warner was not harmed by omission based on ample evidence of guilt). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting James's motion for mistrial.

Conclusion

[21] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[22] Affirmed.

Crone, Senior Judge.

May, J., and Foley, J., concur.