Court Opinion

ID: 9666353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:11:26.916815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:26.665126
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. Although the facts of the case are not important to this dissent, I’m compelled to say that as I view the facts the case was almost open and shut against the appellee. The jury must have decided the case upon extraneous matters because there is no logical justification for the fact that the appellee sold the appellants LaBelle rice but the seed produced Star Bonnet plants. The latter brand matures much later than LaBelle. The jury’s finding, which I consider to be completely contrary to the facts, lends credence to the argument that the verdict should be set aside because the jury considered extraneous prejudicial information. The basis for this dissent is that there is clear evidence before this court that the verdict was not decided on the issues and evidence presented, but rather on the opinion of at least two jurors that W.B. “Tuffy” Howard was an unscrupulous and mean attorney. ARE Rule 606(b) provides that after a trial a juror may testify on the questions whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was brought to bear upon any juror. The juror’s statement quoted in the majority opinion indicated that “Tuffy” Howard had helped a man get custody of his children for the purpose of murdering them. The second juror agreed with the first juror that Howard was that kind of a man. Most certainly such information was not properly before the jury. The primary issue to be decided was whether the rice seeds were LaBelle or Blue Bonnett. The expressed negative reputation of the attorney was unquestionably extraneous prejudicial information. Even if “Tuffy” Howard had earned the reputation of being a rough and tough attorney, it was not evidence which should have been considered by the jury in deciding his client’s case. The analysis set forth in the majority opinion would probably go so far as to prohibit an inquiry into whether a juror had been bribed. I think the entire court would agree that there would not be a fair jury trial under such circumstances. For the reasons stated above, I think the case should be reversed and remanded for a trial before a fair and impartial jury.