 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mann6/6/2000
ent extra-judicial experiments conducted by a subset of the jury outside of the jury room "may constitute extraneous evidence" (emphasis added)).
We agree with our dissenting colleague that the juror misconduct question presented turns largely upon a judgment call. The extraneousness of any influence upon a jury's deliberations is inherently a fact-bound question, a question which the district court-as having presided over the presentation of all evidence and argument-is ideally situated to rule in the first instance. We conclude on the record presented that the district court did not act contrary to logic and reason in ruling that the jury based its verdict solely upon the evidence adduced at trial and their own, individual consciences. In light of this holding, we need not reach the second prong of the analysis that addresses the possibility of prejudice to the Defendant.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. The denial of Defendant's motion for a new trial is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
I CONCUR:
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
|