In this case, we are called to review a novel issue in Indiana—whether a juror, who was apparently not asked about her Facebook usage or friendships, engaged in juror misconduct when she did not disclose during voir dire that a witness’s relative was among her expansive list of Facebook friends.
….
On appeal, Slaybaugh challenges the trial court’s denial of his post-trial motion for mistrial, claiming that the trial court erred by determining that the juror truthfully stated that she did not know the victim. Concluding that Slaybaugh failed to show that the juror engaged in misconduct (let alone gross misconduct that likely harmed him) and that his challenge on appeal is nothing more than a request to reweigh the trial court’s credibility determination, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Slaybaugh’s motion for mistrial.
….
The day after the trial and subsequent days thereafter, Slaybaugh’s mother, Katina Slaybaugh (“Katina”), emailed Slaybaugh’s trial counsel … and … expressed her concern that one of the jurors, Juror #2767 or Juror K.A. (“the Juror”), may have lied during voir dire about not knowing the victim, K.W. Katina’s allegation was based on a search of Slaybaugh’s Facebook profile and his list of Facebook “friends.” Specifically, Katina stated that the Juror was a Facebook friend of one of Slaybaugh’s Facebook friends, Zach Anderson (“Zach”), whom she believed to be a step-sibling of K.W. Katina also alleged that the Juror was a Facebook friend of Stephani Anderson (“Stephani”), who was a step-sibling of K.W. Katina also emailed screenshots from the Facebook profiles of the Juror, Zach, and Stephani. …
….
Thereafter, … Slaybaugh … filed a Motion for a Mistrial Based on Juror Misconduct and to Set Aside the Verdict (“motion for mistrial”) … [t]he crux of [which] was that the Juror had committed misconduct because she did not reveal during voir dire or at trial that she knew K.W. …
….
… During the [Juror’s] deposition, the Juror testified that she had over 1,000 Facebook friends but that she did not personally know all of these people. She testified that she was a realtor and that she had “friended” most of her 1,000 plus Facebook friends for “networking” purposes. [Record citations omitted throughout.] The Juror also testified that she did not know Stephani or Zach, but she acknowledged that she “could be” friends with Stephani on Facebook. Additionally, the Juror … testified that she did not know K.W. before or during trial. … She also testified that she did not know K.W. or recognize her when she testified at trial. …
….
Thereafter, the trial court denied Slaybaugh’s motion for mistrial, finding that “the juror in question truthfully stated that she had no knowledge of the defendant, the victim or the family of either.” …
….
We agree that, under “certain circumstances, ‘[t]he failure of a juror to disclose a relationship to one of the parties may entitle the prejudiced party to a new trial.’” [Citations omitted.] …
….
We find guidance, however, from our sister state of Kentucky, which has confronted and addressed this issue of alleged juror misconduct based on a juror’s list of Facebook friends. In Sluss v. Commonwealth, 381 S.W.3d 215 (Ky. 2012), * * * the defendant argued that the “mere fact that each of the [two challenged] jurors was a ‘Facebook friend’ with [the victim’s mother] create[d] a presumption of juror bias[.]” Id. at 222. The Kentucky Supreme Court disagreed and, in doing so, discussed the nature of “friendships” on Facebook:
….
But “friendships” on Facebook and other similar social networking websites do not necessarily carry the same weight as true friendships or relationships in the community, which are generally the concern during voir dire. The degree of relationship between Facebook “friends” varies greatly, from passing acquaintanceships and distant relatives to close friends and family. The mere status of being a “friend” on Facebook does not reflect this nuance and fails to reveal where in the spectrum of acquaintanceship the relationship actually falls. …
….
Id. at 222-23 (footnotes omitted). Based on this reasoning, the Sluss Court … explained that “[a]s with every other instance where a juror knows or is acquainted with someone closely tied to a case, it is the extent of the interaction and the scope of the relationship that is the relevant inquiry.” Id. [at 223]. …
Shortly after Sluss, the Kentucky Supreme Court again addressed the issue of whether a juror’s Facebook friend status with a victim’s relative entitled the defendant to a new trial. In McGaha v. Commonwealth, 414 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2013), as modified (Sept. 26, 2013), the [court] … explained that “[i]t [wa]s now common knowledge that merely being friends on Facebook does not, per se, establish a close relationship from which bias or partiality on the part of a juror may reasonably be presumed.” Id. at 6 (citing Sluss, 381 S.W.3d at 222-23). …
….
Here, Slaybaugh alleged that the Juror had engaged in juror misconduct because she did not reveal during voir dire or at trial that she knew the victim. Upon receiving Slaybaugh’s motion containing this allegation, the trial court scheduled a hearing and ordered the parties to depose the Juror. The trial court reviewed all supporting documents attached to Slaybaugh’s motion and the State’s response and determined that the Juror “truthfully stated that she had no knowledge of the defendant, the victim or the family of either.”
Slaybaugh merely suggests that the evidence reviewed by the trial court— specifically, the Facebook pages submitted with his motion—support a decision opposite that of the trial court. Slaybaugh’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the Juror was truthful during voir dire is nothing more than an invitation to reweigh the evidence and the court’s credibility determination, which we will not do. Slaybaugh has failed … to show that there was misconduct, let alone gross misconduct. [Citation omitted.] … Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Slaybaugh’s motion for mistrial based on juror misconduct.
…
Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.