FARMINGTON – In a bizarre twist, a jury’s not guilty verdict was reversed and changed to a guilty verdict on a charge of aggravated operating under the influence after the two men and 10 women panel had been dismissed in closing moments in the trial of Ryan Hurd, 23.
The jury was apparently confused over aspects in the law concerning accomplice liability when considering the aggravated OUI charge and how it would be presented as a charge for the jury to render a verdict, the judge told the court.
|
|
The defense attorney said he will appeal the conviction.
Hurd, of Lincoln, was found not guilty by the jury of the more serious manslaughter charge involving the death of Terry Richardson, Jr. 34, of Dover-Foxcroft who was killed in Hurd’s car after it crash on Oct. 17, 2007.
When the foreperson was asked how the jury found Hurd on the charge of aggravated OUI, she said “not guilty.” Hurd’s mother cried out and wept loudly on hearing both not guilty verdicts.
The jury members were then dismissed and thanked for their service by Justice Michaela Murphy. Seconds after the jury entered a room off the courtroom where they had spent several hours yesterday and today deliberating following four days of testimony, Murphy was called in.
Later, in a statement made in open court for the record, Justice Murphy explained “because there was an outburst by the defendant’s family I saw consternation on the faces of the jury.” She thought the jury members were concerned over the reaction of the family, but it was something altogether different.
“I went into to thank the jury and instead was told they had voted on a third count,” Murphy said in court. “They felt they had been cut off,” when only two charges were read. On hearing this, she asked them to put their decision in writing and immediately emerged from the jury room and ordered the door be closed and the jury sequestered.
After a recorded discussion by the judge and attorneys in chambers, the jury was handed a special verdict form to vote on. The jurors were given the choice of “aggravated OUI” and a second choice of “aggravated OUI – accomplice liability.” Aggravated OUI is a Class C felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Back in court, the jury foreperson answered “not guilty” to the charge of aggravated OUI and “guilty” to the charge of aggravated OUI-accomplice liability.
The entire case centered on whether Hurd was driving his car when it crashed, killing Richardson and seriously injuring a third passenger, Chad Bernier after all three had been out drinking heavily. In the crash, Hurd was thrown clear of the car, Richardson died and Bernier’s, at times, hazy recollection and Hurd’s contradictory statements of who was driving apparently gave the jury enough reasonable doubt to acquit Hurd of the manslaughter charge.
During his closing arguments, Assistant District Attorney James Andrews explained to the jury that Hurd could also be found guilty of the aggravated OUI charge even if he wasn’t driving, using a theory of accomplice liability based on the fact that, as the owner of the vehicle in question, Hurd’s conduct was instrumental in allowing Richardson to operate the vehicle while intoxicated.
The jury was given an accomplice liability instruction by Justice Murphy in relation to the aggravated OUI charge prior to its deliberations, but obviously became confused as to how such a guilty verdict should be announced.
After the jury was discharged finally, defense attorney Richard Hartley objected both to allowing the guilty verdict to be entered at all and to the personal recognizance post-conviction bail reinstated following the belated entry of the guilty verdict. Hurd was released on bail with conditions that he have no use or possession of alcohol or illegal drugs and no have contact with Bernier.
Outside the courtroom, Hartley continued to object to the change in verdicts.
“The jury reached a verdict on two charges and was dismissed from service by the judge only to have to entertain further verdicts,” he said. “This is a very unusual situation.”
