Court Opinion

ID: 9513647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:38:38.784725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:57.393607
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring in the result.
[¶ 34] The juror affidavits raise some doubt in my mind as to the possibility of a quotient verdict, but I agree the affidavits are not conclusive on the issue. Rule 59(b)(2), N.D.R.Civ.P., allows the use of juror affidavits to show an improper quotient verdict. This rule distinguishes the procedure from that recommended in Praus v. Mack, 2001 ND 80, ¶ 57 n. 2, 626 N.W.2d 239 and Andrews v. O’Hearn, 387 N.W.2d 716, 734 n. 26 (N.D.1986), in which the court suggested that when juror misconduct is discovered, investigation should cease and the matter should be presented to the court to avoid the possibility of juror taint from extra-judicial pressures. Nevertheless, while N.D.R.Civ.P. 59(b)(2) permits a jury verdict reached “by a resort to the determination of chance” to “be proved by the affidavit of any one of the jurors,” it does not prohibit an evidentiary hearing on the matter. However, here no evidentiary hearing was requested.
*688[¶ 35] I agree with the majority that the affidavits do not conclusively prove misconduct on the part of the jurors. I therefore concur in the result.
[¶ 36] MARY MUEHLEN MARING, J., concurs in the result.