Title: Lambertus v. Buckley

State: nebraska

Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court

Document:

293 N.W.2d 110 (1980) 206 Neb. 440 Robert K. LAMBERTUS, Appellant, v. Melvin BUCKLEY, Appellee. No. 42891. Supreme Court of Nebraska. June 10, 1980. *111 David W. Jorgensen, of Nye, Hervert, Jorgensen & Watson, P.C., Kearney, for appellant. David A. Bush, of Kay & Satterfield, North Platte, for appellee. Heard before BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY, WHITE, and HASTINGS, JJ. WHITE, Justice. In this appeal, a trial was had to a jury on the plaintiff's petition praying for judgment against the defendant for the value of certain corn which the plaintiff alleged was delivered to the defendant and not paid for. The jury deliberated for 6 hours and returned a 10-2 verdict in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals and assigns one error: That the trial court erred in refusing to receive in evidence affidavits of five jurors reciting that they misunderstood and misapplied the court's instruction No. 10. The court's instruction No. 10 is as follows: The plaintiff conceded that the instruction was proper. We affirm. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-606(2) (Reissue 1975), Rule 606 of the Nebraska Rules of Evidence, provides that: The jury's understanding of the instructions of the court is a matter that inheres in the verdict and cannot be classified as extraneous, prejudicial information improperly brought to the jury's attention. The statute codified a rule adopted by this court in Palmer v. Parmele, 104 Neb. 30, 175 N.W. 649 (1919). This court said: "An affidavit of a juror as to what items the jury allowed or disallowed in computing the amount due, or what the jury believed they had a right to do under the instructions, is incompetent. Such matters are commonly held to inhere in the verdict." Id. at 34, 175 N.W. at 650. See, also, Selders v. Armentrout, 192 Neb. 291, 220 N.W.2d 222 (1974); Carpenter v. Sun Indemnity Co., 138 Neb. 552, 293 N.W. 400 (1940); Kohrt v. Hammond, 160 Neb. 347, 70 N.W.2d 102 (1955). In Farmers Co-op. El. Ass'n Non-Stock, Big Springs, Neb. v. Strand, 382 F.2d 224, 230 (8th Cir. 1967), it was stated: Defendant moved for a new trial upon the basis of facts asserted in an affidavit of one of the jurors to the effect that the jurors discussed the likelihood of insurance *112 coverage and its effect and that they gave inadequate consideration to and misinterpreted the court's instructions. Defendant also asked that the members of the jury be summoned for examination. The court properly denied such a request and the motion for new trial. (Emphasis supplied.) The plaintiff's assignment of error is without merit. The trial court was correct in refusing to admit the affidavits of the jurors in evidence and the matter is affirmed. AFFIRMED. KRIVOSHA, C. J., participating on briefs.