Printable Format60-444. Testimony of jurors not limited except by this article. This article shall not be construed to (a) exempt a juror from testifying as a witness to conditions or occurrences either within or outside of the jury room having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict or the indictment, except as expressly limited by K.S.A. 60-441; (b) exempt a grand juror from testifying to testimony or statements of a person appearing before the grand jury, where such testimony or statements are the subject of lawful inquiry in the action in which the juror is called to testify.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-444; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Section did not change the rules of evidence existing prior to the adoption of the code, Spencer A. Gard, 16 K.L.R. 125, 135 (1967).
Mentioned in comment concerning jury misconduct, John O. Martin, 10 W.L.J. 493, 494 (1971).
"Impeaching Civil Verdicts: Juror Statements as Prejudicial Misconduct," James M. Concannon, 52 J.K.B.A. 201, 202, 205, 211 (1983).
"Recent Development in Kansas Civil Procedure," E. Elinor P. Schroeder, 32 K.L.R. 515, 535 (1984).
"Post-Verdict Juror Interviews: Williams v. Lawton," Shannon Holmberg and G. Andrew Marino, K.D.J. Fall Issue II (2008).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Testimony of juror as challenge to verdict considered. Kincaid v. Wade, 196 K. 174, 180, 410 P.2d 333.
2. Section does not authorize broad excursions into extraneous matters; materially. State v. Blocker, 211 K. 185, 196, 505 P.2d 1099.
3. Cited; suit brought under comparative negligence law; jurors guilty of misconduct by considering the question of fault of plaintiff and by increasing actual damages to allow for attorney fees; judgment reversed. Verren v. City of Pittsburg, 227 K. 259, 260, 261, 607 P.2d 36.
4. Inquiry into method of reaching verdict proper where alleged that prohibited quotient method or averaging of jurors' verdicts used. Johnson v. Haupt, 5 K.A.2d 682, 685, 623 P.2d 537.
5. Evidence that jury's award included attorney fees and taxes held insufficient to establish misconduct. Cornejo v. Probst, 6 K.A.2d 529, 533, 534, 537, 539, 630 P.2d 1202 (1981).
6. Conscious conspiracy to disregard instructions is jury misconduct sufficient for new trial. City of Ottawa v. Heathman, 236 K. 417, 425, 690 P.2d 1375 (1984).
7. Cited in extensive dissenting opinion where majority held affidavits from counsel on jury misconduct generally insufficient to support error. Walters v. Hitchcock, 237 K. 31, 39, 697 P.2d 847 (1985).
8. Cited; juror questioning during trial, testimony at new trial hearing, refusal to allow interview of whole panel examined. State v. Ruebke, 240 K. 493, 512, 731 P.2d 842 (1987).
9. Statement by juror outside courtroom as raising presumption of partiality, prosecutor's failure to report statement examined. State v. Cady, 248 K. 743, 756, 811 P.2d 1143 (1991).
10. Trial judge's refusal to recall jury and determine whether jury misconduct introduced extraneous evidence which substantially affected verdict was error. Saucedo v. Winger, 252 K. 718, 727, 729, 850 P.2d 908 (1993).
11. Jury instructions regarding fault examined where plaintiffs served dishwashing liquid rather than similar-looking alcoholic beverage. Cott v. Peppermint Twist Mgt. Co., 253 K. 452, 476, 856 P.2d 906 (1993).
12. Denial of motion for new trial based on evidence of juror's mental process in determining verdict upheld. State v. Kaiser, 260 K. 235, 250, 918 P.2d 629 (1996).
13. Alleged jury misconduct was an improper attempt to impeach the verdict by juror testimony; motion for new trial denied. State v. Franklin, 264 K. 496, 498, 501, 958 P.2d 611 (1998).
14. Standards for admissibility of affidavits from jurors discussed. Butler v. HCA Health Svcs. of Kansas, Inc., 27 K.A.2d 403, 6 P.3d 871 (2000).
15. Cited, permits evidence of juror misconduct affecting the verdict. State v. Cook, 281 K. 961, 976, 135 P.3d 1147 (2006).
16. General rule for jury recall cited and discussed; jury verdict reinstated. Williams v. Lawton, 38 K.A.2d 565, 170 P.3d 414 (2007).
17. Cited; in case involving extrajudicial evidence by juror, no new trial ordered on that basis. State v. Johnson, 40 K.A.2d 1059, 1065, 1066, 198 P.3d 769 (2008).
18. K.S.A. 60-441 and 60-440 discussed regarding juror testimony; jury recall found warranted. Williams v. Lawton, 288 K. 768, 207 P.3d 1027 (2009).