 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carpenter v. Hannan3/28/2002
in chambers. However, we are unable to tell from the record before us what this discussion entailed and whether there had been an agreement that the judge would enter the jury room to deliver the revised verdict form.
Nonetheless, regardless of whether counsel for the PCF agreed to allow the judge to enter the jury room to deliver the revised verdict form, the judge's actions in this case constituted clear error and rose to the level of impairing the administration of impartial justice. Article 1796 uses mandatory language in explaining that if a jury has begun deliberation and desires to receive information on any point of law, they shall be conducted to the courtroom. In the instant case, the judge clearly violated the dictates of Article 1796 by entering the jury room to address the jury's questions, rather than returning the jury to the courtroom as required by law. Such behavior threatens the integrity of the deliberation process and we cannot sanction same. Having determined that the trial court erred in this regard, we turn now to a consideration of whether a remand is warranted.
The Louisiana Supreme Court has concluded that where a jury verdict is "tainted" due to a material error at trial but an otherwise complete trial record exists, the general rule is that an appellate court should, if it can, render judgment on the record. Jones v. Black, 95-2530, p. 1 (La. 6/28/96), 676 So.2d 1067. However, " here a view of the witnesses is essential to a fair resolution of conflicting evidence, the case should be remanded for a new trial." Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Co., 388 So.2d 707, 708 (La. 1980) (emphasis added).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the jury's verdict was based heavily on credibility determinations made after hearing from the parties and the various witnesses who testified. Faced only with a cold record and conflicting evidence, resolution of which depends on a first-hand view of the witnesses, we are convinced that this case must be remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the merits.
CONCLUSION
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is vacated and the case is remanded to the trial court for a new trial on the merits. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed equally against the parties.
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
Page 1 2 3 4 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|