Court Opinion

ID: 9617574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:58:09.514791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:12.464808
License: Public Domain

KAUFMAN, P. J.
I concur. It is my view that the record does not disclose irregularities in the proceedings of the jury or any misconduct of the jury. A motion for new trial was granted on these two grounds. The trial court in granting this motion was guilty of an abuse of discretion, for there is no legal authority for the granting of the motion on these grounds in the face of the record before us. (George v. City of Los Angeles, 51 Cal.App.2d 311 [124 P.2d 872]; Kollert v. Cundiff, 50 Cal.2d 768 [329 P.2d 897].)
Here, the record discloses that no false answers were given on voir dire. Likewise, the record does not disclose that the verdict was arrived at by chance. Affidavits of jurors cannot be used to impeach their verdict. The only statutory exception to this rule is where the verdict was arrived at by resort to the determination of chance. Judicial decisions recognize one other exception, to wit, that such affidavits may be used to set aside a verdict where the bias or disqualification of a juror was concealed by false answers on voir dire examination. This ease comes within neither of these exceptions.