Court Opinion

ID: 9934142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:53:24.340281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:26.363332
License: Public Domain

I agree with the majority that the trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury was erroneous. In Hanners v. BalfourGuthrie, Inc., 589 So.2d 684, 686 (Ala. 1991), our supreme court observed that a trial court did not err "[b]y recharging the jury, which had already heard all of the evidence, and affording it the opportunity to return a verdict in conformity with the law." Here, the jury's first verdict was in conformity with the law and they should not have been recharged.
I disagree with the majority, however, that Mrs. Dearman is entitled to a new trial. The majority's holding that the trial court should not have given the supplemental jury instruction necessarily means that the trial court should have accepted the first verdict finding in favor of Mrs. Dearman for $5000. I would reverse the order granting Mrs. Dearman a new trial and remand for reinstatement of the first verdict.