American Power Products, Inc. v. CSK Auto, Inc.
334 P.3d 199
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- American Power Products sued CSK Auto for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation seeking over $5 million; trial lasted ~12 days over three weeks and produced a nonunanimous 6-2 jury verdict awarding $10,733 to American.
- Parties had stipulated a $10,733 "starting point" for damages; extensive evidence and many witnesses were presented.
- After verdict, American’s investigator obtained juror affidavits; Juror H.T. stated a bailiff entered the jury room, was asked how long deliberations typically lasted, and replied "an hour or two should be plenty."
- American moved for a new trial alleging the bailiff’s ex parte communication improperly curtailed deliberations and sought an evidentiary hearing; CSK did not dispute the bailiff’s statement.
- The superior court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing; the appellate majority held that was an abuse of discretion because the court lacked necessary factual findings about the communication’s context and effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror affidavits about the bailiff’s statement could be considered | H.T.’s affidavit concerns extraneous prejudicial information and is admissible under Ariz. R. Evid. 606(b)(2)(A) | Only portions about deliberations/effect are barred by Rule 606(b)(1); other affidavit parts inadmissible | Admissible only to the extent they report extraneous communications (H.T.’s statement about bailiff is admissible); internal deliberation content is not |
| Whether the bailiff’s remark was an improper communication | Bailiff’s comment about deliberation length was a substantive procedural matter beyond administrative details and thus improper under Rule 39(e) and Perez | CSK effectively conceded accuracy but argued the remark was innocuous/administrative and harmless | The remark was improper: length of deliberations is a matter of procedural importance and not a mere administrative detail |
| Whether the improper communication was prejudicial such that a new trial or presumption of prejudice is required | The communication could have coerced jurors to rush, so prejudice may be present and an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine effect; if hearing infeasible, order new trial | The remark was innocuous, non-substantive, did not affect issues or evidence, and the trial court could objectively find no prejudice without a hearing | Because the record lacked facts about context (who heard it, timing, follow-ups, time to verdict), the court abused discretion in denying a hearing; remand to determine feasibility of hearing, and if infeasible, order new trial |
| Scope of permissible inquiry under Rule 606(b) at an evidentiary hearing | Court may examine extrinsic facts about the communication (what was said, when, who heard it) but jurors cannot testify about deliberation mental processes or effect on votes | Defendant: prejudice can be assessed objectively without probing jurors’ subjective mental processes; hearing unnecessary | On remand, if hearing feasible, court may investigate extrinsic circumstances (timing, audience, duration available, point in deliberations, case strength) consistent with Rule 606(b) and Perez; if not feasible, vacate verdict and order new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez ex rel. Perez v. Cmty. Hosp. of Chandler, Inc., 187 Ariz. 355, 929 P.2d 1303 (Ariz. 1997) (two-prong test and factors for evaluating bailiff–juror ex parte communications)
- Perkins v. Komarnyckyj, 172 Ariz. 115, 834 P.2d 1260 (Ariz. 1992) (communications of arguable substance or significance must be referred to parties before responding)
- Kirby v. Rosell, 133 Ariz. 42, 648 P.2d 1048 (App. 1982) (limitations on use of juror affidavits and consideration of admissible portions)
- State v. Miller, 178 Ariz. 555, 875 P.2d 788 (Ariz. 1994) (remand to determine feasibility of post-trial juror inquiry despite passage of time)
- Brooks v. Zahn, 170 Ariz. 545, 826 P.2d 1171 (App. 1991) (trial court discretion to hold evidentiary hearing on extraneous prejudicial information)
- State v. Hall, 204 Ariz. 442, 65 P.3d 90 (Ariz. 2003) (consider trial context, ambiguity, and strength of evidence when assessing prejudicial effect of extrinsic statements)
- Kilgore v. Fuji Heavy Indus. Ltd., 148 N.M. 561, 240 P.3d 648 (N.M. 2010) (factors for assessing impact of extraneous material: manner, duration, timing, point in deliberations, and case strength)