Background
After a February 2018 traffic stop, Thomas J. Fox was charged with traffic offenses and later indicted on two fourth-degree counts of operating a motor vehicle during a period of license suspension. At his April 2024 trial, the State presented testimony from the officer who conducted the stop and a New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission analyst who explained Fox’s driving record and prior suspensions. The jury convicted Fox of both fourth-degree charges, and the trial judge found him guilty of the traffic violations.
During deliberations, the jury asked for the court transcripts. Without first discussing the note and a proposed response with counsel outside the jury’s presence, the judge told the jurors that no transcript existed but testimony could be played back. The judge instructed them to identify the desired testimony in a new note and required their request to be unanimous. The jury submitted no further playback request and returned guilty verdicts approximately forty-five minutes later. Fox received an aggregate fifteen-month prison term with a 180-day parole disqualifier.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division held, as a matter of first impression, that the trial judge misapplied her discretion by requiring juror unanimity before considering the jury’s initial request for playback. Existing New Jersey precedent establishes that playback requests ordinarily should be granted absent unusual circumstances. Although a judge may ask jurors to identify the witnesses or portions of testimony they wish to review, nothing in that precedent permits the judge to impose unanimity as a condition for playback.
Applying plain-error review because defense counsel had not objected, the court found that the unsupported unanimity requirement had the clear capacity to produce an unjust result. The brief trial involved only about seventy-nine minutes of witness testimony, and the record did not establish whether the jury abandoned its request because it could not reach unanimity or because playback was no longer needed. The risk that even one juror was denied an opportunity to rehear important testimony undermined confidence in the deliberations and verdicts. The court therefore vacated Fox’s fourth-degree convictions and sentence and remanded for a new trial.
The court also directed trial judges who receive jury questions to convene counsel, read the question into the record, state a proposed response outside the jury’s presence, permit counsel to present their positions and objections, and then place the intended response on the record. It did not definitively decide whether a playback request must reflect jury consensus or may originate with a single juror, but stated that it saw no reason to reject the view that an individual deliberating juror should be permitted to seek clarification of testimony.
Key Takeaways
- A trial judge may not condition consideration of a jury’s testimony-playback request on unanimity among the jurors.
- Playback requests ordinarily should be granted absent unusual circumstances, although the court may ask the jury to identify the relevant witness or portions of testimony.
- Before answering a jury question, the judge should consult counsel outside the jury’s presence, place the question and proposed response on the record, and allow counsel to state positions and objections.
Why It Matters
The decision protects each juror’s ability to clarify important evidence during deliberations and cautions courts against procedures that may suppress a request merely because other jurors disagree. It also supplies trial judges with a clear process for handling jury questions while preserving counsel’s opportunity to object.
The ruling leaves open whether New Jersey law affirmatively permits one juror, acting alone, to require playback. Its immediate holding is narrower: unanimity cannot be imposed as the threshold for considering a playback request.