Court Opinion

ID: 9724886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:19:03.893439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:07.515139
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While the majority's strict position may be theoretically admirable, it comes up somewhat lacking when instituted within reality. Since Indiana courts have not clearly spoken on the subject, I believe that adoption of a rule set forth in another line of cases is more appropriate. "[T)he rule prevailing in most jurisdictions is that the drinking of intoxicating *359liquor by a juror or jurors is not sufficient, of itself, to vitiate the verdict; that to have such vitiating effect, so as to warrant or require the granting of a new trial, it must appear that the drinking resulted in some degree of intoxication or inebriation." 6 ALR8d 984 Jury-Use of Liquor-Civil Cases § 7 (1966) and the cases cited therein.
The court policy in this case did not force any of the jurors to drink, it merely limited the drinking with their meal to a reasonable amount. It allowed the jurors to act in a manner that was normal for them. In fact, it could be argued that prohibiting alcoholic beverages with meals could have just as great an impact or even more of an impact on the verdict than allowing them. One juror testified that he always had two beers with his evening meal. To be required to forego those two daily beers may have had an effect on him, particularly if the trial had been one resulting in lengthy deliberations. Adoption of such a rule merely allows jurors the opportunity to act as naturally as is practicable in a very unnatural situation.
The question also comes to mind of what action would have been necessary had there been no court policy and the jurors had ordered alcoholic beverages on their own initiative? Would there then need to be a voir dire of the jury to see who had a drink? We seem to be toying with a possible ex post facto situation here.
Were any of the jurors questioned regarding what medications they were using or if they happened to have a headache that day? Maybe someone drank too many cups of coffee with dinner and was unusually stimulated. It could be argued that all such factors might affect deliberations. However, such things are considered irrelevant unless they exist in the extreme. So too should the rule be regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverages with meals.
Day after day judges and jurors are called upon to determine whether individuals are intoxicated. If we consider them capable of making that determination in life and death situations, it only seems reasonable that we should afford them the same authority in deciding whether a juror . has consumed aleohol to the point it affects his ability to deliberate effectively. Generally, the granting or denial of a new trial on the ground of alleged juror misconduct rests within the discretion of the trial court, and that decision will not be interfered with on appeal absent a showing of abuse of such discretion. Roose v. Roose et al., (1896) 145 Ind. 162, 44 N.E. 1. I see no reason to stray from that general principle in this situation.
The case of record which perhaps most closely parallels the one now before us is Kealoha v. Tanaka, (1962) 45 Haw. 457, 370 P.2d 468. Kealoha was a wrongful death action arising out of a collision between an automobile and a motorcyclist which resulted in a judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial on several grounds, one of which was that consumption of intoxicating liquor by some of the jurors during the dinner recess after submission of the case to the jury, constituted prejudicial conduct as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of Hawaii reiterated its adoption of the "modern" view in citing Territory v. Ferris, (1903) 15 Haw. 139, at 149:
"'The material inquiry in such cases is whether the defendant was prejudiced thereby, in other words, whether the use was such as to affect the mind of any of the jurors and thus deprive the defendant: of the benefit of the condition of mind of each and all of the jurors to which he is entitled; and if it appears that the defendant was not prejudiced, the verdict can not be reversed.'
# #i # *
"[WJhile the use of intoxicating liquor during a trial '... is deserving of severe censure and condemnation, such use is not of itself, where the liquor is not furnished by one of the parties to the cause, necessarily a ground for the granting of a new trial.'"
*360The Kealoha court also cited a Colorado case for support:
must be borne in mind that the question we are to deal with has nothing to do with the moral or social questions involved in the use of intoxicating liquors. If a verdict is to be set aside for misconduct of the jury, it must be for legal reasons alone. If by such misconduct a party litigant, or, in a criminal case, a party on trial, has been prejudiced, the verdict should be set aside, for the law requires a fair and impartial verdict. If the justness, soundness or fair ness of the verdict has been impaired, or in any way vitiated, by the use of liquors by the jury, such verdict should be set aside. But if no such consequences be shown, or are fairly inferable, if no juror was intoxicated, or in any manner or degree affected in his deliberations or judgment, for what reason in such case is the verdict to be set aside? How has the party on trial in such case been prejudiced or injured by the conduct or misconduct of the jury? The real question in the case is, has the party to be affected by the verdict been prejudiced by the conduct or misconduct of the jury? " Jones v. People, (1882) 6 Colo. 452, at 461-462.
The Jones court had the following answer to the argument that the only safety lies in the rigid rule of setting aside the verdict in every case where intoxicating liquors are used by the jury, regardless of whether the jury was affected by such use:
" 'Would such a rule prevent a repetition of like misconduct by future juries? We say no. And instead of safety, there is manifest danger in the rule, for it would hold out an obvious temptation, and furnish an almost certain opportunity to secure a new trial in every case, by the surreptitious introduction of liquor into a jury room....' Jones v. People, supra at 462-462. Accord, Dolan v. State, 40 Ark. 454, 475."
The Federal Courts also appear to take the position I am proposing. In United States v. Taliaferro, (1977) 558 F.2d 724, at 726, the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit stated:
"Although we look with disfavor on the practice of allowing jurors to have alcoholic beverages during their deliberations, the mere fact that they were so allowed in this case does not require a new trial. The defendant must show that he was prejudiced-t.e., that a juror became intoxicated so that he or she was affected in the performance of his or her duties. Faith v. Neely, 41 F.R.D. 361, 366 (N.D.W.Va.1966) Kealoha v. Tanaka, 45 Haw. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962); People v. Crooker, 47 Cal.2d 348, 303 P.2d 753 (1956), aff'd, 357 U.S. 433, 78 S.Ct. 1287, 2 L.Ed.2d 1448 (1958). Taliaf-erro has made no showing of prejudice, and the District Judge found that none existed, following an evidentiary hearing held in connection with Taliaferro's motion for a new trial. The fact that ten jurors each had one drink is not in itself a sufficient showing of prejudice. Moreover, the Marshal testified that when he accompanied the jurors back to the Courthouse after their dinner, none of them appeared intoxicated."
The only evidence in this case regarding the effect of the dinner drinks was affidavits by two doctors containing opinions to the effect that consumption of aleohol may have an effect on the deliberations. There is no evidence that it did affect these jurors. In fact, the testimony of the bailiff and the response, or lack thereof, by the jurors to the trial court's questions regarding whether any juror was under the influence of alcohol to the extent it affected deliberations, demonstrated that no one felt the jury's deliberations and verdict were affected by the dinner drinks. Therefore, the appellants were not prejudiced.
The majority points to the statement made by one juror that, "I would like to add I think having the drinks we did helped more than anything. There was a lot of tension starting to build up during the time we were there. I don't know if it was coming back from the meal or the walk but-." The trial court pointed out that an *361hour and a half break and a full stomach may have made a difference. The juror even admitted that the meal or the walk may have been what broke the tension. Therefore, this statement is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that the appellants were prejudiced by the dinner drinks.
It can also be argued that it is not within the province of this Court to proscribe behavior. Such action can only be taken by the Legislature through enactment of statutes or the Supreme Court of Indiana through the promulgation of court rules. An example of this was pointed out by the appellants in their brief when they noted that IND.CODE § 7.1-5-10-1(a)(8) makes it unlawful to sell alcoholic beverages on election days from 8:00 A.M. until the polls are closed.1 No similar law exists for jury duty.
I would not suggest that a trial court should permit a verdict which is not the deliberate judgment of the jurors. However, with the habit of drinking so prevalent as it unfortunately is, to hold that, if a juror should drink a single drink of liquor, the verdict thereafter rendered must be set aside, would be both dangerous and unnecessary. The consumption of liquor is not illegal, and we have no control over its use, unless it is shown that such use has led to a miscarriage of justice. Like it or not, we live in a society where the drinking of alcoholic beverages is a common practice. I believe this Court would be better serving the public by adopting a rule in tune with our society.
In the instant case, no miscarriage of justice occurred, no prejudice to the appellants was demonstrated by the record, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Therefore, I would apply the "modern" rule and affirm the judgment.

. Of course, even IND.CODE § 7.1-5-10-1(a)(3) does not prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages during this time.