Opinion ID: 901525
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jury Affidavits

Text: [¶14.] Motzko's motion for new trial asserted that the jury misunderstood the law in arriving at its verdict. A jury's verdict may be set aside in extreme cases where it is the result of passion or prejudice or the jury has palpably mistaken the rules of law.... Atkins v. Stratmeyer, 1999 SD 131, ¶7, 600 NW2d 891, 894 (quoting LDL Cattle Co., Inc. v. Guetter, 1996 SD 22, ¶13, 544 NW2d 523, 526-27 (quoting Stoltz v. Stonecypher, 336 NW2d 654, 657 (SD 1983) (citing Simons v. Kidd, 73 SD 306, 42 NW2d 307, 309 (1950)))). [¶15.] Motzko argues that a new trial should have been granted because of the minimal, observable evidence of impairment and the affidavits of seven jurors indicating that they were under a mistaken belief that Count IA (driving under the influence) required them to find Motzko guilty if she had any amount of alcohol in her system. However, SDCL 19-14-7 (Rule 606(b)) prohibits consideration of juror affidavits explaining any matter or statement occurring during deliberations or anything that affected the juror's mind or emotions. [7] The statute only allows juror evidence regarding extraneous prejudicial information or outside influences that are improperly brought to the jury's attention. [¶16.] We have provided examples of the difference between admissible extraneous and inadmissible intrinsic information. Intrinsic information, about which testimony is prohibited, involves (1) the effect such extraneous information had upon their minds; (2) statement or discussions which took place during deliberations; or (3) evidence of `intimidation or harassment of one juror by another, or other intra-jury influences.'. . . Extrinsic information may include media publicity, conversations between jurors and non-jurors, and evidence not admitted by the court. State v. Boyles, 1997 SD 99, ¶12, 567 NW2d 856, 859 (quoting State v. Wilkins, 536 NW2d 97, 99 (SD 1995)) (citations omitted). Additionally, once the jury has been discharged, a juror will not be allowed to testify in order to impeach a jury verdict on grounds which inhere in the verdict itself. Id. ¶13. A jury's understanding of the instructions and charge is a matter that inheres in the verdict. Id. [¶17.] In this case, the affidavits only attempted to impeach the verdict on grounds that inhere in the verdict itself. The affidavits reflected the juror's thoughts, discussions, and understanding of the jury instructions. Such testimony was inadmissible, intrinsic information. Because juror affidavits are not permitted on these subjects, the trial court correctly rejected them in reviewing the motion for new trial.