935 (Colo.2004) (en banc) (rejecting Remmer’s automatic presumption of prejudice and, instead, adopting an objective test that “eschews rebuttable presumptions that are conclusive in effect” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 859 A.2d 364, 432 (2004) (“Remmer created a prophylactic rule whose purpose was to protect the impartiality of the jury. It does not follow that any deviation from its suggested measures constitutes a violation of a defendant’s right to an impartial jury. If that right remains protected, the alleged violation is harmless.”). We take d to be prejudicial — only extraneous material that relates to the case being tried is sufficient to invoke the presumption. State v. Rivera, 1997-NMCA-102, ¶ 12, 124 N.M. 211, 947 P.2d 168 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Jojola, 2006-NMSC-048, ¶ 6,
holding that a communication between the judge and juror which is unrelated to the case being tried is not improper and prejudicial holding that extraneous information which is unrelated to the case being tried is not prejudicial holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a violation of the fcra based on extraneous information where it was alleged that the document included broad language regarding disclosure of the information the accuracy of the information the consequences of providing a false statement and the effect of a photocopy holding that defendant has constitutional right to be tried by impartial jury unprejudiced by extraneous influence