Opinion ID: 1968621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Was The Jury Properly Polled?

Text: Appellant objected to the method used in polling the jury. This method consisted of the clerk taking the verdict from the foreman and then saying to each individual juror: You have heard the verdict of your foreman  Is that your verdict? Each juror replied that it was. The method of polling a jury as above indicated has been followed in this state for so many years that it is a practice not lightly to be discarded in the absence of clear proof of the violation of some fundamental right of appellant. The purpose of polling a jury is to determine whether or not there is a concurrence on the part of each individual juror with the verdict announced by the foreman. If it is clear from the answer of each juror that he or she agrees with the verdict announced by the foreman, in the absence of statute there is no reason why any particular method of polling a jury must be followed. Here, the form used was the one followed in this state for many years. It was clear from the answer of each juror that he or she agreed with the verdict as announced by the foreman. Appellant cites two New Jersey cases to demonstrate what she contends to be the proper method of polling the jury, namely: after the foreman has announced the verdict, by having each juror rise and state the verdict explicitly. Unquestionably such procedure would undoubtedly be a proper one. However, both the cases cited by appellant are excellent examples of how a juror, unfamiliar in the use of legal phraseology, may become confused when this method is followed. In the case of State v. Myers, 7 N.J. 465, 81 A.2d 710, 25 A.L.R.2d 1171, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey specifically approved a polling of the jury where the clerk after repeating the verdict of the foreman to each juror, asked him if that was his verdict. We see no merit in appellant's contention. We find no error in the record. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.