Opinion ID: 2188334
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: loving's motion for new trial

Text: In conjunction with her motion for new trial, Loving claimed jury misconduct as a result of the jury's consideration of the documents which were not received in evidence. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1142(2) (Reissue 1989) (jury misconduct as a ground for a new trial). To support her motion, Loving offered the four items in questionthe three photocopies and legal padand affidavits of three jurors, who stated that each of them had considered those items during jury deliberations. A fourth juror, by affidavit, stated that the documents in question were read aloud during the jury's deliberations and that the affiant had considered those documents during deliberations in Loving's case. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1144 (Reissue 1989) (affidavits required to support new trial motion based on jury misconduct). Baker's counsel objected to the jurors' affidavits in relation to Neb.Evid.R. 606(2), Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-606(2) (Reissue 1989), and argued that to the extent the affidavits showed what effect these exhibits had on [the jurors] ... they are not receivable. The district court received the juror affidavits and subsequently overruled Loving's motion for new trial.