365 N.C. 262
N.C.2011Background
- Penny Cummings sued Agnes Ortega, M.D., and Women's Health Care Specialists, P.A. for medical malpractice in Harnett County Superior Court.
- The trial (Dec 1–16, 2008) lasted slightly over two weeks with sixteen witnesses; verdict found no liability for defendants.
- Judgment for defendants was entered Jan 5, 2009.
- After the verdict, juror Simmons reported misconduct by juror Githens; affidavits from Simmons (Jan 12, 2009) and Murphy corroborated claims.
- The trial court allowed pre-deliberation misconduct evidence but excluded extraneous post-deliberation matters; it granted a new trial on Apr 13, 2009.
- Defendants sought relief from the order under Rule 60(b); the trial court denied on Jun 30, 2009; Court of Appeals affirmed the new-trial order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are juror affidavits about predeliberation misconduct admissible under Rule 606(b)? | Cummings argues Rule 606(b) permits predeliberation misconduct evidence. | Ortega/WHCS contend Rule 606(b) bars juror testimony about internal deliberative processes. | Affidavits inadmissible under Rule 606(b). |
| Does the external-versus-internal influence distinction govern admissibility here? | Affidavits describe external influence on deliberation. | Affidavits describe internal state of mind, not external influence. | Affidavits describe internal influences and are barred by Rule 606(b). |
| Did the trial court err in relying on juror affidavits to grant a new trial? | Affidavits show juror misconduct affecting verdict; new trial appropriate. | Rule 606(b) prevents consideration of juror affidavits for predeliberation matters. | Yes, error; reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. M'Leod, 8 N.C. (1 Hawks) 344 (1821) (juror misconduct affidavits not admissible to impeach verdict)
- Purcell v. S. Ry. Co., 119 N.C. 728 (1896) (early authority on jury-impeachment principle)
- State v. Royal, 90 N.C. 755 (1884) (juror testimony to impeach verdict generally not allowed)
- State v. Brittain, 89 N.C. 481 (1883) (limits on juror testimony to challenge verdicts)
- State v. Smallwood, 78 N.C. 560 (1878) (early articulation of jury-impeachment rule)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (post-verdict juror testimony generally prohibited; external influence exception)
- State v. Robinson, 336 N.C. 78 (1994) ( Rule 606(b) constraint; external influences allowed)
- Quesinberry, 325 N.C. 125 (1989) (distinction between external and internal juror influences)
- Elliott v. State, 360 N.C. 400 (2006) (Rule 606(b) scope and juror testimony limitations)
- Johnson v. Allen, 100 N.C. 131 (1888) (supporting finality and stability of verdicts)