Wellington, Oct 23 NZPA - The Court of Appeal is to investigate whether an "improper" verdict was reached in a rape case because a juror did not want to spend another night in a hotel.

Iowane Seru Sucuturaga was last year found guilty in Greymouth District Court of three rapes and jailed for 10 years.

He has appealed his convictions and sought Appeal Court rulings on fresh evidence and on issues raised in a letter from one of the jurors to his lawyer, Phillip Hall, The Press reported.

In the letter, the juror said that on the third day of deliberations the jury was "at a stalemate as three of us were saying not guilty".

"It was pointed out to us... we would have to spend another night in a hotel, which I could not face as I was stressed enough by this case," the juror wrote.

"The stress was affecting my health and basically I just wanted to get home."

In its ruling on the defence applications, the Court of Appeal said the jury's retirement was too long and the trial judge should have discharged the jury long before the verdicts were taken.

"There are grounds to suggest an improper compromise was reached on the guilty verdicts, rendering those verdicts unsafe."

The Court of Appeal said a full hearing would have to address those issues, and it ordered inquiries be made of the juror who wrote the letter, the jury attendant, and the foreman.

Sucuturaga met and befriended the complainant and moved into her house in October 2001.

The rapes were said to have occurred between April 2002 and December 2003.