Malpica-Cue v. Fangmeier
2017 COA 46
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Malpica-Cue sued Fangmeier for damages from a car accident; jury returned a special verdict allocating damages among noneconomic ($2,500), economic ($18,373.38), and physical impairment ($20,873.38), producing a total of $41,746.76.
- Each juror signed the special verdict; the verdict was read aloud in open court and the foreperson confirmed when polled; counsel declined to poll further.
- After dismissal, defense counsel spoke with jurors who said the jury intended $0 for physical impairment and that the $20,873.38 entry for that line was a clerical mistake (it was the sum of the first two categories).
- Fangmeier filed a post-trial motion (with the foreperson’s affidavit and a deliberation-board photograph) asking the court to correct the verdict to reflect total damages of $20,873.38; the district court denied the motion citing CRE 606(b).
- The Court of Appeals considered whether the 2007 amendment to CRE 606(b) (conforming to the 2006 federal amendment) permits juror testimony to show a mistake in entering the agreed verdict on the form and whether the district court erred by refusing to reconvene jurors and by refusing to consider the foreman’s affidavit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CRE 606(b) bars juror testimony that a clerical mistake was made entering the verdict | 606(b) bars post-verdict juror testimony about deliberations; Stewart controls so affidavits inadmissible | The 2007 amendment to CRE 606(b) permits juror testimony to prove a mistake in entering the verdict on the form | The amendment creates a narrow exception allowing juror testimony to show a clerical/mistake in entry (not juror mental processes) |
| Whether the district court erred by refusing to reconvene jurors and by refusing to consider the foreman’s affidavit | The verdict was final after polling; no relief warranted | The court should have reconvened jurors and considered the affidavit under the mistake exception | Court erred: must attempt to reconvene jurors and hold an evidentiary inquiry into whether all jurors agreed to a different verdict |
| Standard for correcting a verdict based on juror testimony | Foreman’s affidavit alone should not overturn a verdict because jury deliberations are protected | The affidavit alleges the narrow, correctable clerical error contemplated by the rule amendment | Affidavit entitles defendant to a hearing; verdict may be corrected only if court is convinced all jurors agreed to the different verdict |
| What evidence may be considered in the post-verdict inquiry | Only juror testimony prohibited; district court lacked authority to probe | Juror testimony within the mistake exception plus objective evidence should be considered | Court may consider juror testimony (if reconvened) and objective non-deliberative evidence (e.g., arithmetic on form, deliberation notes) before changing verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart ex rel. Stewart v. Rice, 47 P.3d 316 (Colo. 2002) (held juror affidavits inadmissible under pre-amendment rule; no clerical-error exception)
- Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 855 (U.S. 2017) (Sixth Amendment may require considering juror statements of racial bias despite evidentiary rules)
- Robles v. Exxon Corp., 862 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1989) (example cited in advisory notes for narrow exception where foreperson wrote a different number than agreed upon)