Ledbetter v. Howard
2012 OK 39
| Okla. | 2012Background
- Ledbetters sued Dr. Howard and Radiology Services for negligence related to Ledbetter’s Charcot foot and alleged misreading of an x-ray; jury returned a verdict for defendants; Ledbetters moved for new trial on juror misconduct grounds; trial court granted new trial and the Court of Civil Appeals remanded; issue centered on admissibility of a juror’s affidavit alleging extraneous prejudicial information in deliberations; foreperson asserted she would not override witness testimony with professional expertise; affidavits alleged the foreperson used diabetes expertise to sway jurors; Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the trial court’s ruling.
- Ledbetter’s medical history included diabetes with peripheral neuropathy and Charcot foot, culminating in reconstructive treatment and prolonged disability; Ledbetters alleged delayed treatment due to misread x-ray on July 9; the case proceeded to deliberations with a foreperson who was a licensed practical nurse.
- During voir dire, foreperson testified she dealt with diabetics but would not substitute her experience for trial testimony; juror affidavits described her sharing diabetes-related experiences and opinions during deliberations; these statements were argued to be extraneous information influencing the verdict.
- The trial court found juror misconduct and granted a new trial; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed and ordered judgment for defendants; the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s new-trial order, holding the juror-affidavit admissible under the extraneous prejudicial information exception to 12 O.S.2011 § 2606(B).
- The Court’s ruling rests on statutory interpretation of 12 O.S.2011 § 2606(B) and a fact-intensive assessment of prejudice, balancing finality of verdicts with protection against juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of juror affidavit under § 2606(B) | Ledbetters: affidavit admissible as extraneous information | Howard/Radiology: affidavit inadmissible under § 2606(B) | Admissible under § 2606(B) |
| Whether juror misconduct was proven to warrant a new trial | Evidence showed foreperson used extraneous diabetes expertise to influence deliberations | No abuse of discretion; statements insufficient to taint verdict | No abuse of discretion; new trial affirmed |
| Impact of foreperson’s guarantee not to inject expertise | Foreperson’s guarantee should have protected verdict | Guaranty insufficient given contrary evidence | Guaranty insufficient; misconduct established |
| Whether jurors may rely on professional expertise in deliberations | Expertise may inform deliberations | Extraneous information prejudicial if outside record | Professional-expertise use may be permissible, but here extraneous content prejudicial; new trial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Oxley v. City of Tulsa, 794 P.2d 742 (Okla. 1989) (extraneous information exception to § 2606(B))
- Willoughby v. City of Oklahoma City, 706 P.2d 883 (Okla. 1985) (§ 2606(B) admissibility framework)
- Dominion Bank of Middle Tenn. v. Masterson, 928 P.2d 291 (Okla. 1996) (voir dire and juror misconduct analysis in Oklahoma)
- Rein v. Patton, 208 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1953) (precedent on new-trial standards and juror conduct)
- Sligar v. Bartlett, 916 P.2d 1383 (Okla. 1996) (juror misconduct and new trial considerations)
- Benally (United States v. Benally), 546 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2008) (extraneous information and deliberations—federal analogue to § 2606(B))
- Marquez v. City of Albuquerque, 399 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2005) (juror expertise not necessarily extraneous information)