Court Opinion

ID: 9783544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:48:52.45061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:25.587366
License: Public Domain

Maupin, J.,
concurring:
I agree that the juror affidavits concerning outside juror research from the Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) and discussion of the research with the juror’s colleagues established a reasonable probability that the research materials affected the verdict, thus mandating reversal for a new trial.
I write separately to note that our embrace of the New Mexico approach to claims of juror misconduct based upon consideration of extrinsic evidence will substantially and beneficially reduce the scope of post-trial attacks upon jury verdicts.
The New Mexico approach, set forth in State v. Mann,1 allows jurors to consider their specialized knowledge and to communicate views based upon that knowledge. This approach holds that the communication of such views does not constitute the transmission of extrinsic evidence, but does prohibit reliance upon or discussion of information from outside sources such as treatises, textbooks or research not in evidence. Thus, the New Mexico method will eliminate the vast majority of post-verdict relitigation of cases based upon claims of misconduct through reliance on extrinsic evidence where, as here, a juror is possessed of specialized knowledge that may bear on an issue in the case. Also, the New Mexico approach implicitly acknowledges the policy that parties that leave such jurors in place during jury selection take their chances with the use of the specialized knowledge. However, I remain of the view that a doctor, lawyer, engineer or any other person with particularized special knowledge that is relevant to the case is subject to a challenge for cause.
I therefore agree that the specialized knowledge concerning Accutane imparted to the jury does not require reversal. However, I conclude with the majority the PDR research constituted *575extrinsic research prohibited under the New Mexico approach. Accordingly, in my view, the use of the PDR research by the jury mandates reversal in this very close case of guilt or innocence.2

 39 P.3d 124, 131 (N.M. 2002).

 I also agree that the portions of juror affidavits concerning sentence of necessity involved intrinsic matter and were properly excluded from the district court’s consideration of the juror misconduct claims.