Court Opinion

ID: 9707665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:17:52.791595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:36.431252
License: Public Domain

YANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I concur in the majority opinion. But I do not believe the opinion should be construed as an invitation to losing parties to interview jurors with the hope that one or more of them may have made a casual remark in the jury room concerning some facet of the case not in evidence for the purpose of obtaining a new trial because of juror misconduct. The majority opinion indicates that once extraneous prejudicial information has improperly reached the jury the trial court must only determine that there is a reasonable possibility that the extrinsic material could have affected the verdict in order that a new trial is required. I believe that “reasonable possibility” must be considerably more than a remote chance that the extrinsic material affected the verdict and, in my estimation, should approach a “probability” that the material did, in fact, influence the verdict before a new trial should be granted because of juror misconduct.
SAND, J., concurs.