Court Opinion

ID: 9726055
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:29:14.515049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:23.327721
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
Not only did Chandler agree to the trial court’s rejection of the jury request to view the anatomical drawings but he did not assert that ruling as a basis for his Motion to Set Aside the Verdict. That motion was premised solely upon the assertion that during deliberations, the jury utilized extrinsic materials which were not admitted into evidence. For this reason, I agree that Chandler has not shown entitlement to reversal of the ruling.
The trial court in setting aside the verdict apparently equated the denial of the jury request for the drawings with fundamental error. I write separately in this regard in order to express my similar reservations concerning the “disagreement” trigger to application of I.C. 34-1-21-6. As noted by the majority, the trial court stated that
we don’t have jurors that come right out and say we have a disagreement, we need to re-see the evidence. I almost think that when they ask for something, it’s as if they do disagree or they don’t understand it.
Op. at 484. I believe the trial court accurately pinpointed the realities of jury deliberative activity. Although belatedly, the trial court here concluded the jury had expressed an uncertainty as to the evidence sufficient to fall within a fair construction of the statute. Had the court reached that conclusion when the jury request was received, the exhibits would have been reviewed by the jury in open court. That would have been patently permissible.
To the extent, however, that the trial court felt compelled to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, I disagree. Under all of the circumstances and in light of the fact that the exhibits were used solely as an aid to the medical testimony, the initial ruling did not constitute fundamental error and did not justify setting aside the verdict.
For these reasons I concur in the reversal of the trial court’s ruling.