Court Opinion

ID: 9660087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:03:32.252819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:14.532359
License: Public Domain

BILLINGS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The principal opinion glosses over the broad, vague, and general allegations in the defendant’s last (No. 28) ground of error. The opinion recognizes that the “one or more jurors” were not specifically identified. The shotgun averment also fails to specifically state which questions were falsely answered by what juror but avers generally, in blunderbluss fashion, to questions asked “concerning prior claims, litigation and involvement with Barnes Hospital.”
By holding this general assignment meets and complies with the specificity requirement of Rule 78.07, the Court assures this allegation of error will now be found in each and every motion for a new trial — and leaving it to post-motion investigation via computers, indexes, and personal interviews, to come up with the specificity called for by Rule 78.07. The rule should be followed or abolished.
As noted by the dissenting opinion of Judge Higgins, the trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling a charge of jury misconduct; further, that this Court recently refused to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court in what is now known as the “sleeping juror” case and deferred to the judgment of the trial court.
This writer would hold that the matter of alleged jury misconduct was not properly preserved for appellate review and if reviewed that there was no abuse of discretion by the trial court. The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.