Court Opinion

ID: 9855104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:19:33.58138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:40.582245
License: Public Domain

*701Judge Wynn
concurring.
I agree with the majority that a new trial is warranted in this case but on different grounds.
In the case sub judice, the plaintiff introduced photographs to assist her in describing her pathway through the warehouse. The trial judge limited their admissibility to illustrative purposes in the absence of authenticating testimony. Later, the trial court permitted the jury to view the photographic evidence in the jury room over the defendant’s objection. This was error.
Our Supreme Court has held that without the consent of parties, it is error to permit the jury to take evidence into the jury room. State v. Stephenson, 218 N.C. 258, 10 S.E.2d 819 (1940). Juries are believed to be impartial when they base their verdict solely on what they see and hear in court. State v. Caldwell, 181 N.C. 519, 106 S.E. 139 (1921). Allowing them to conduct a private investigation, thereby making inferences contrary to those made in court, denies counsel an opportunity to reply to the improper inferences. Doby v. Fowler, 49 N.C. App. 162, 270 S.E.2d 532 (1980). Moreover, it is well established that it is error to allow jury room viewing of exhibits not received into evidence. Collins v. Ogburn Realty Co., Inc., 49 N.C. App. 316, 271 S.E.2d 512 (1980) (holding that the trial court committed error by permitting the jury to retain exhibits which have been marked but not admitted).
In the instant case, Satellite objected to the jury’s request to view the photographic exhibits in the jury room because of the strong possibility that a private viewing of unauthenticated exhibits would have an effect on the jury’s impartiality. At trial, plaintiff neither testified as to the accuracy of the photographs nor to whether significant changes had occurred between the time of the incident and the time the photographs were made. As such, the trial court limited their admissibility to illustrative purposes only.
Because of the consent rule and the nature of the evidence in the case before us, I would award a new trial.