Court Opinion

ID: 9738246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:46:38.652836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.816542
License: Public Domain

ROBB, Judge,
concurring.
I concur fully in the majority opinion, but write separately to address certain points made by the dissent.
First, with regard to Kirk’s affidavit, I note that for the allegations therein that fall within the parameters of Evidence Rule 606(b), we accept the allegations as true because the law requires us to do so. Curto did not file a response to Henri’s motion and did not controvert the claims made by Kirk in her affidavit; therefore, we must accept the contents of the affidavit as true. See op. at 141 (citing Jewell v. State, 624 N.E.2d 38, 42 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993)); cf. Evans v. Buffington Harbor River Boats, LLC, 799 N.E.2d 1103, 1109 n. 6 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (“The import of the Jewel decision is that we must accept the alternate juror’s claims as true. Nonetheless, that does not remove the claim from the reach of Evidence Rule 606(b) .... ”), trans. denied. The law does not support weighing the allegations in a juror’s affidavit against the juror’s conduct at trial in *145order to determine which assertions are truthful as the dissent suggests.
The dissent cites a recent criminal case addressing alleged juror misconduct during a criminal case and notes that the defendant therein faced a sixty-five year sentence. See op. at 145 (citing Myers v. State, 887 N.E.2d 170 (Ind.Ct.App.2008)). I do not believe we can judge cases against each other in this manner. Although the stakes in Myers were the defendant’s personal liberty for sixty-five years, the stakes here are personal reputation for a lifetime. The stakes are high to every litigant and each case should be considered on its own merits, within the bounds of the law.
The dissent also calls reversing the jury verdict and remanding for a new trial a “radical act.” Op. at 145. I acknowledge that parties are not entitled to a perfect trial; they are entitled only to a fair trial. See Ind. Trial Rule 61 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”). Nonetheless, when a party can demonstrate that she has not received a fair trial, reversal is not “radical”—it is the appropriate course of action.