Court Opinion

ID: 9735728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:28:59.746662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:01.098384
License: Public Domain

Michael J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from *803the majority’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict may be set aside and the jury reconvened for an evidentiary hearing to determine the correct verdict.
It is well established that a jury’s verdict may not be impeached by juror testimony or affidavits where the jury members were polled, concurred in their verdict, and were discharged. Consumers Power Co v Allegan State Bank, 388 Mich 568, 573; 202 NW2d 295 (1972); Metz v City of Bridgman, 371 Mich 586, 592; 124 NW2d 741 (1963); Routhier v Detroit, 338 Mich 449, 452-454; 61 NW2d 593 (1953); Heintz v Akbar, 161 Mich App 533, 540; 411 NW2d 736 (1987). There are two narrow exceptions to this rule. First, where the jury has not yet been polled, juror affidavits or testimony may be used to establish that the verdict was not unanimous so as to permit the trial court to poll the jury regarding its true verdict. Routhier, supra; Ledbetter v Brown City Savings Bank, 141 Mich App 692, 698; 368 NW2d 257 (1985); Hoffman v Monroe Public Schools, 96 Mich App 256, 257-258; 292 NW2d 542 (1980), lv den 409 Mich 931 (1980). Second, affidavits and testimony of jurors may be used to challenge the verdict where the written verdict does not conform to the true verdict due to a clerical error. Ledbetter, supra; Brillhart v Mullins, 128 Mich App 140, 154; 339 NW2d 722 (1983); Dunham v VFW Post 446, 104 Mich App 541, 544; 305 NW2d 260 (1981), lv den 412 Mich 912 (1982). However, the mere claim that the jury intended a different outcome does not permit modification or grant of a new trial. Brill-hart.
Neither of these two exceptions apply to the instant case. Here, the jury was polled, assented to its verdict, and was discharged. Jurors’ testimony or statements after discharge may not be used to *804attack the verdict under the first exception. The jurors assented to the verdict upon being polled and so are estopped from impeaching their verdict at a later date. Nor does the second exception apply. Contrary to the majority’s holding, this case simply cannot be characterized as a clerical error in transcribing the jury’s verdict. The jury recorded the same verdict on the verdict form as it delivered verbally and assented to upon being polled. There was simply no clerical error or transcription error in writing down this verdict. The jury is not permitted to impeach its verdict. An evidentiary hearing to permit the jury to impeach its own verdict is an abomination and would be contrary to Michigan law. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to amend the jury’s verdict or to reconvene the jury.
Since the jury’s given verdict seems to me to be against the great weight of the evidence, I find no error in the trial court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. I would affirm.