Court Opinion

ID: 9660909
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:23:47.972812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:23.192871
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice.
I respectfully dissent.
Í. While I disagree with the majority’s treatment of Division IV on cross-examination, the disagreement is not important enough to occasion a dissent.
II. The real area of disagreement lies in Division VII. The bill of exceptions adequately shows that during the trial one of the jurors (subsequently named foreman) 1 procured dictionary definitions of the words “undue” and “undue influence” and brought them into the jury room during deliberations. The dictionary definition was read to the jury at least twice and compared with the legal definition of the term as it was given to the jury in the court’s instructions. While the dictionary definitions procured were not set forth in the *848record, two conclusions are inescapable: first, the dictionary definition was different from that given by the court, and two, as the foreman by affidavit stated: “ * * * the one set forth in the Instructions cast a greater burden on the plaintiff than if the Jury had confined themselves to the definition as set forth in the dictionary.” (Emphasis added.)
Mongar v. Barnard, 248 Iowa 899, 82 N.W.2d 765, 771, 772, states: “ ‘In order to justify a new trial on the basis of misconduct of jurors it must appear the misconduct was calculated to, and it is reasonably probable did, influence the verdict.’ Krieg v. Grant, 248 Iowa 396, 405, 80 N.W.2d 724, 729. See also Fagen Elevator v. Pfiester, 244 Iowa 633, 641, 56 N.W.2d 577, 581, and citations.”
The bill of exceptions and affidavits on which the motion for a new trial is based may show matter which does not essentially inhere in the verdict; but how these extraneous matters affected the jurors’ vote may not be considered.2 Harden v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 253 Iowa 341, 343, 112 N.W.2d 324. Given the facts as to what happened, it is for the trial court to determine whether the claimed misconduct was calculated to, and reasonably probably did, influence the verdict. Bashford v. Slater, 250 Iowa 857, 96 N.W.2d 904. The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether the conduct is of such stature as to require a new trial. This discretion is not unlimited and this court has reversed and remanded for new trial when a chart showing stopping distances of automobiles was improperly taken into the jury room by one of the jurors. Harden v. Illinois Central Railway, supra.
In Fagan Elevator v. Pfiester, 244 Iowa 633, 56 N.W.2d 577, 582, we considered a case where two copies of the Iowa Driver’s Guide were found in the jury room after verdict was returned. We held prejudicial error had not occurred. By way of illustration we said: “The situation here is somewhat like that where jurors consult a dictionary during their deliberations. This has been held not to require a new trial. 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 58 d (1), page 182; 39 Am.Jur., New Trial, § 84, page 98.”
The Corpus Juris Secundum citation also notes a case where consultation of a dictionary was held to constitute prejudicial misconduct. This matter has since been exhaustively reviewed in an annotation at 54 A.L.R.2d 738, Use of Books in Jury Room. Most of the books used were dictionaries. The cases are substantially split on the prejudicial effect of such alleged misconduct. As noted by the annotator at least part of this divergence may be traced to a split of authority as to whether such conduct is presumptively prejudicial or whether such conduct must be affirmatively shown by the complaining party to be prejudicial.
This court has not presumed prejudice in similar cases but has examined what has occurred and determined whether it is reasonably probable prejudice occurred. Rancho Grande, Inc. v. Iowa State Highway Comm., Iowa. 156 N.W.2d 293.
Where a dictionary, which was not admitted in evidence, was given to the jury by an officer of the court, the Illinois appellate court in Gertz v. Bass, 59 Ill.App.2d 180, 208 N.E.2d 113, 115, 116 said: “* * * the dictionary contained definitions of terms which were essential to a decision in the case, and which were substantially different from the technical legal definitions of those terms which the jury was properly instructed to apply in arriving at their verdict.

“In this case, we believe that the error is clear, that the danger of prejudice is great and that the proof of actual prejudice is difficult. Although we have no direct way of knowing from the record what ac*849tual use was made of the dictionary or what effect its use may have had, we cannot agree with the defendants that it is only pure speculation that the jury may have consulted the dictionary to obtain definitions of the crucial words in the case. It is reasonable to infer from the fact that the jury specifically requested the dictionary, that they made use of the volume in determining the meaning of the crucial terms and were influenced thereby to the prejudice of the plaintiffs.” Accord: In re Collins’ Will, 18 N.J.Misc. 492, 15 A.2d 98; Daniels v. Barker, 89 N.H. 416, 200 A. 410.
The facts are stronger here. The dictionary definition used involved a word that had been previously and authoritatively defined by the trial court. It was the duty of the jury to use the definition supplied or seek further clarification. The definition involved the very essence of the case. Indeed, it constituted the body of the claimed wrong as no other issue was submitted.
The use of the words to express the legal concepts that order our society is, at best, a difficult and dangerous business. The difficulty is accentuated when the legal profession attempts to explain the concepts to a jury of laymen in understandable, yet legally correct, language. The process must include definitions of the terms used. It makes little sense to me to spend great effort on instructions, including definitions, and then allow an officious juror to substitute a dictionary definition for that of the court.
In Iowa we do not inquire whether the misconduct of the juror did, in fact, influence the jury. This matter of inquiry necessarily involves questions and answers that inhere in the verdict. In this respect our law differs from that of Alabama cited by the majority.
Our case law is closer to that of New Jersey. See In re Collins’ Will, 18 N.J. Misc. 492, 15 A.2d 98, 100-101, which is directly contra to the Alabama case. The Circuit Court said: “ * * * Assuredly, the use of a simplified English dictionary to explicate established principles of law as expressed in language approved by our courts is beyond the avowed scope of such a work and in such use, misguidance is more than probable.

“It is the duty of the trial judge to expound the law to the jury and to afford the attorneys of the litigants an opportunity to hear the instructions and to register exceptions to any instructions considered to be erroneous. It is the duty of the jury to accept the law of the case as expressed in the language chosen by the court.

“The power to grant a new trial is essentially remedial in character. In the present case the issue relating to undue influence was exceedingly controversial. In all the circumstances it would seem that the evidence on this branch of the case was not considered with an adequate understanding of the pertinent rules of law.”
In Iowa we determine whether the misconduct was calculated to, and reasonably probably did, influence the verdict. If the extraneous definition was not calculated to influence the verdict why did the juror copy it out of the dictionary? Why did he show or read it to the other jurors ?
For me at least the affidavit of the offending juror answers the second part of the inquiry; i. e., that it reasonably probably did influence the verdict. “ * * * the one (definition) set forth in the Instructions cast a greater burden on the plaintiff than if they had confined themselves to the definition set forth in the dictionary.” (Emphasis added.) I think it is reasonably probable, (1) the jury considered both definitions, and (2) such action did improperly influence their decision. I would grant a new trial on this ground.
RAWLINGS, J., joins in this dissent.
MASON and LeGRAND, JJ„ join in division II of this dissent.

. This was the same juror who was seen talking to the witnesses on two occasions.

. Thus the majority’s sentence: “There is no indication here the jury did not give full consideration to the definitions given in the court’s instruction.” is highly unfair. Such evidence is immaterial as it tends to show matters that we have consistently held to inhere in the verdict.