North Dakota's Supreme Court ordered a new trial in a Rolette County rape case, saying the defendant should have been privy to late-night discussions about how jurors couldn't agree whether he was guilty.

Travis Parisien was convicted on three felony charges that he held his girlfriend prisoner in her St. John home for about two hours while raping and beating her.

Parisien had been living in the home for about two weeks before the August 2002 incident, court records say. The woman, who tried to escape through a bathroom window, suffered a broken rib and numerous bruises.

After a four-day trial, jurors returned guilty verdicts on charges of gross sexual imposition, felonious restraint and aggravated assault at 2:19 a.m. on Saturday, June 26, 2004. The final day of the four-day trial had begun at 9:30 a.m. Friday.

The 12-person jury began deliberations at 7:40 p.m. Friday, after sending Northeast District Judge Lester Ketterling a note that one juror needed to care for her 91-year-old mother in the evenings, and disliked driving at night.

Later, the jury sent notes just before and after midnight, saying they could not agree on a verdict for the gross sexual imposition charge.

Ketterling, Rolette County State's Attorney Mary O'Donnell and Parisien's lawyer, Tom Slorby of Minot, discussed the jury's notes in Ketterling's office when Parisien was not there, court records indicate. The conversations took place outside of open court, and there is no verbatim record of them.

The Supreme Court's unanimous decision, written by Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle, said Parisien should have been present for the discussions, and added they should have taken place in the courtroom.

"This court has long construed (state law) to require that all communications with jurors, after a case has been submitted to them, must be made in open court, and in the presence of the defendant," VandeWalle said.

After the first note, Ketterling replied the jurors should continue deliberating, court records show. After the second, the judge asked if the jury had reached verdicts on the other two felony counts, and asked if a recess would help jurors make a decision.

VandeWalle wrote that "the totality of the circumstances indicate the jurors were susceptible to influence, and could have formed the belief that they would not be allowed to leave until a verdict had been rendered."