Opinion ID: 879244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did consumption of alcoholic beverage by the jury influence the outcome of the case?

Text: FIG maintains that the jury verdict here was invalid per se because of drinking by a jury after deliberations have begun. The record reveals that while the jury was considering this case, it was taken to dinner. Some members of the jury asked if it would be alright to have a drink. The bailiff in charge told them yes after receiving approval from her boss. The evidence was that no juror had more than one glass of wine or beer during dinner and that no juror was observed in an impaired condition from the consumption of the one drink. This issue is controlled by Wibaux Realty Company v. Northern Pacific Railway Company (1935), 101 Mont. 126, 54 P.2d 1175. There this Court held that unless a party litigant is culpable, the consumption of alcoholic beverage by a juror during its deliberations which is not excessive and which is not shown to have led to a miscarriage of justice is not grounds for reversal of a jury verdict. While we caution judges and bailiffs that no persons serving on a jury during their deliberation should be allowed alcoholic beverages, particularly at county expense, we decline to adopt a per se rule invalidating jury verdicts on the record presented here. FIG has made no showing that the consumption of one glass of beer or wine by several jurors during dinner did in any way influence the outcome of the case.