423 S.W.3d 655
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Houchins, as administratrix of Joyce Estes’s estate, appeals a circuit court denial of her motion for a new trial following a jury verdict favoring HCPA and three employees.
- HCPA cared for Estes and her husband; Estes, 85, suffered from Alzheimer's and later died from injuries after a fall in April 2007.
- Plaintiff sued HCPA, Scott, Bradley, and Kincaid in 2008 for negligence, breach of contract, and wrongful death, later adding deceptive practices and other theories.
- The case went to trial in March 2011; the jury found no negligence by HCPA or the employees, and found Scott and Bradley were independent contractors.
- The jury also found for HCPA and Kincaid on deceptive practices, fraud, and related claims, with no fault allocated to any defendant.
- Houchins challenged jury communications, alleged juror misconduct, and exclusion of evidence concerning Scott’s certification lapse and Bradley/Scott’s criminal backgrounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror communication by bailiff during deliberations | Bailiff violated statutes by answering jury questions and not escorting them to the courtroom. | Bailiff’s actions did not prejudice the verdict; affidavits show proper handling and no extraneous influence. | No manifest abuse; no reversible error; verdict affirmed. |
| Juror misconduct during deliberations | Juror Larsen concealed information; foreman supplied extraneous information and misdirected deliberations. | No proven prejudice; affidavits insufficient to show failure to disclose or prejudicial influence. | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice established; trial court affirmed. |
| Exclusion of evidence of criminal background and CNA certification lapse | Background checks and certification lapse were relevant to negligent hiring/retention and deceptive practices. | Evidence excluded under Rule 609 and lack of causal connection to Estes’s fall; admissibility not shown. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cherry, 341 Ark. 924 (2000) (prejudice not presumed; juror misconduct must show prejudice)
- Holden Farms Ltd. P’ship v. Arkansas State Highway Comm’n, 93 Ark.App. 202 (2005) (premature deliberations and time considerations for new trial)
- State v. Osborn, 337 Ark. 172 (1999) (juror impeachment risks and tampering concerns)
- Waste Mgmt. of Ark. v. Roll Off Serv., Inc., 88 Ark.App. 343 (2004) ( Rule 606(b) limits on juror thought-process testimony)
- Arkansas Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23 (2012) (considerations on affidavits and extraneous material)
- Zinger v. State, 313 Ark. 70 (1993) (prejudice assessment from juror affidavits)
- Diemer v. Dischler, 313 Ark. 154 (1993) (context for assessing juror information and prejudice)
- Blake v. Shellstrom, 2012 Ark. App. 28 (2012) (extraneous information from juror experiences not automatically prejudicial)
- Milner v. Luttrell, 2011 Ark. App. 297 (2011) (application of Rule 606(b) limitations)