Tapanes v. State

The issue presented is whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for new trial, where a juror used a smartphone during a break in jury deliberations to look up the definition of “prudent,” a term used in the jury instructions and during closing arguments. We find that it was error to deny the motion, and the appellant is entitled to a new trial.

The appellant was charged by indictment with first-degree murder and convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial. The victim and his family moved to the appellant’s neighborhood in September 2006. The appellant stopped by the…