said, there was no evidence that comments by Juror 18 had prejudiced the remaining jurors. We conclude that the trial co 51, 852-53 (Ct.App.1981) (finding irreparable jury contamination where juror brought into jury room prejudicial newspaper article about the defendant’s guilt, bailiff discussed article with jury, and juror then wrote note asking court not to grant mistrial based on newspaper incident). In contrast to the cases cited by Defendant, however, here there are no allegations that the jury was subjected to “outside mischiefs.” Cf. id. at 778, 626 P.2d at 852. See also Mann, 2002-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 20-25, 131 N.M. 459, 39 P.3d 124 (explaining distinctions between jury tampering, jury misconduct, and jury bias); Goodloe v. Bookout, 1999-NMCA-061, ¶ 22, 127 N.M. 327, 980 P.2d 652 (<HOLDING>). {11} We also decline to adopt the reasoning
holding that there is no distinction in the right to jury trial between sentencing factors and elements recognizing this distinction recognizing distinction between tolling and estoppel recognizing the distinction between inappropriate communications within jury and influences from outside the jury which are more serious recognizing distinction between two types of waiver