 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maxwell v. Palmer12/22/2000
ven to them by the court in its instructions.
Three conditions must be met to impeach a verdict on the basis of jury misconduct: (1) evidence from the jurors must consist only of objective facts concerning what actually occurred in or out of the jury room bearing on misconduct; (2) the acts or statements complained of must exceed tolerable bounds of jury deliberations; and (3) it must appear the misconduct was calculated to, and with reasonable probability did, influence the verdict. Ten Hagen, 563 N.W.2d at 10 (quoting State v. Arnold, 543 N.W.2d 600, 605 (Iowa 1996)). Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 606(b), juror affidavits may not be received concerning the jury's deliberations unless it deals with "the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror." Iowa R. Evid. 606(b); Hobbiebrunken v. G & S Enters., Inc., 470 N.W.2d 19, 22 (Iowa 1991). "The key distinction to be made is between the internal workings of the jury and external pressures brought to bear on the decision-making process." Id. (Juror affidavits suggesting some members of the jury, after examining plaintiff's recent tax returns and other financial information, decided plaintiff and her children would be able to get along without recovery in a lawsuit could not be received in evidence in support of plaintiff's motion for new trial).
The record does not support Maxwell's allegations. Maxwell has failed to prove the juror's comment at issue resulted from extraneous prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury's attention. As the district court explained:
It is just as likely this comment was related to the size of plaintiffs' claim and evidence that defendants lived on a farm. Plaintiffs suggest defendants either communicated this idea to a juror or waged a campaign in the community to somehow influence the verdict. However, Plaintiff failed to prove that any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror by defendants or anyone else. . . . he statements complained of here do not exceed the tolerable bounds of jury deliberations; nor do they appear reasonably calculated to influence the verdict. Such statements, if they were made, are part of the internal deliberations of a jury and do not impeach the verdict.
We affirm the district court on this issue.
Exclusion of Testimony. Maxwell contends the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Naomi Johnson. Maxwell called Johnson to testify about Geoffory Palmer's driving habits. Maxwell asserts the testimony was admissible pursuant to Iowa Rule of Evidence 406 as evidence of habit or routine practice.
The decision whether to admit evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Vaughan, 542 N.W.2d at 542. Such decisions will not be disturbed on appeal unless the discretion has been abused and a substantial right of a party has been affected. Id.
Iowa Rule of Evidence 406 permits evidence of habit to prove the conduct of the person on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Iowa R. Evid. 406. A habit is a person's regular practice of responding to a particular kind of situation with a specific kind of conduct. Gamerdinger v. Schaefer, 603 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Iowa 1999). The basis for admissibility of habit and custom is the inference if a person has acted a certain way with regularity in the past, it is probable the person acted in conformity with that pattern on the occasion in question. Id. Where a habit of conduct is to be evidenced by specific instances: (a) they should be numerous enough to base an inference
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|