State v. Thomas

Summary

The court held that replacing a sitting juror with an alternate after deliberations began was constitutional because the trial court excused the sitting juror first and instructed the reconstituted jury to begin deliberations anew. It also held that the defendant waived his Fourth Amendment challenge by repeatedly stating that he had no objection when the same monitoring evidence was introduced in additional forms. The court reversed in part, modified and affirmed in part, and remanded for consideration of the remaining appellate issues.