It was misconduct for a juror to ask a psychologist friend for a definition of paranoid schizophrenia before deliberations in the penalty phase of a capital murder case. Defendant Shepard was denied a new trial on the penalty phase, however, because he did not show that his case was prejudiced or that the juror biased against him as a result of the ad hoc consultation.

Shepard was found guilty of murder for shooting a liquor store owner in the head during the course of an armed robbery. At the penalty phase, Dr. Smalldon testified that defendant was a paranoid schizophrenic. Family history revealed that eight of seventeen family members had mental problems. The defendant, however, had no history of mental illness and was eighteen at the time of the crime. After the jury recommended the death penalty and was discharged the state learned that the juror had made contact with a psychologist friend.

The juror testified that the psychologist gave her a "boiled down" short definition "that those kind of people are not really in touch with reality." She did not share the information with other jurors. The trial court found the information the psychologist had given the juror was totally consistent with the description of paranoid schizophrenia given the jury by the defense psychologist.

The Court of Appeals agreed the juror could not then have become biased against Shepard as a result of the contact. Finally, since the remainder of the jury was not aware of the contact, no prejudice occurred and the death penalty recommendation was sustained.