641 So. 2d 114 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1994
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs motion for a new trial must be reversed due to the undisputed fact that nonevidentiary materials were given to the jury during deliberations. Moreover, there is a sufficient record from which it can be determined that the error was prejudicial and that a new trial is required.
Brancaccio sued Jackal Corporation’s restaurant for injuries sustained when he slipped and fell while departing the restaurant. Plaintiff contended that he slipped on a wet rubber mat on the inclined surface of the restaurant’s exit/entrance way. Defendant contended that plaintiff did not slip until he reached the sidewalk, beyond defendant’s premises. The exact location of Brancaccio’s slip was thus the critical issue for the jury to decide.
The majority opinion seizes upon the fact that we have not been provided with a transcript of entire proceedings below. While this is true, we do have the benefit of a partial transcript of the trial and the entire transcript of the hearing on plaintiffs motion for a new trial. During trial Dr. Harren-stein, defendant’s expert liability witness, testified that defendant was not liable for the accident in question. Dr. Harrenstein had made a detailed chart of the accident scene on large (27" x 32") sheets of paper and used this chart during his testimony. The sheets of paper that make up this chart are included in the record before this court. During the course of his testimony, Dr. Harrenstein added a “stick” figure, which was supposed to depict the plaintiffs body position at the time of the accident, to the chart. Dr. Harren-stein positioned the figure that represented plaintiffs body so that it was on the sidewalk, and not on the mat as plaintiff had testified. The chart was not introduced into evidence.
The partial transcript of the trial proceedings discloses that, after the jury had deliberated for several hours, it sent a note to the
The trial court committed reversible error in admitting prejudicial, nonevidentiary material into the jury room. This error can only be remedied by granting a new trial. “The jury is not permitted to take with them into the jury room for use in their deliberations any exhibit which is not introduced into evidence.” Spencer A. Gard, Florida Evidence § 13:15, at 42 (2d ed. 1980); Bottoson v. State, 443 So.2d 962, 966 (Fla.1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984). The prohibition against allowing unadmitted papers and articles into the jury room stems from a duty to guard against an “impermissible intrusion of the jury’s deliberative process.” State ex rel. Pryor v. Smith, 239 So.2d 85, 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) (citing State ex rel. Larkins v. Lewis, 54 So.2d 199 (Fla.1951)). Florida courts take this duty very seriously. See, e.g., Yanes v. State, 418 So.2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (“[W]e feel that the jury process must be firmly governed to the end that the jury will decide cases limited strictly to the evidence presented in court and the law charged to them by the court. A slipshod attitude as to such matters can only undermine the acceptance and confidence which our system has earned.”); Meixelsper-ger v. State, 423 So.2d 416, 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (“One of the most sacred and carefully protected elements of our system of criminal — or civil, for that matter — justice is the sanctity of an impartial jury that has not been infected by unlawful or improper influences. This is absolutely vital to the guarantee of a fair trial to an accused. The safeguarding of that ideal must be zealously guarded.”). The rule prohibiting improper influences in the jury room applies with equal force in civil as well as criminal cases. Id.
The jury’s consideration of the chart was clearly prejudicial. The precise location of plaintiffs slip was the critical disputed issue at trial. The jurors’ request to view the chart before rendering their verdict establishes that the error was harmful. Consequently, a new trial is required. Bottoson, 443 So.2d at 966; see also Sayih v. Perlmutter, 561 So.2d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA) (“It is generally reversible error to deliver to the jury room any materials which have not been admitted into evidence where the materials are of such character as to influence the jury.”), rev. denied, 576 So.2d 290 (Fla.1990); McCormick on Evidence § 217 n. 3 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed. 1992) (“[I]t would appear that most courts hold that the unadmitted exhibit must have been of a potentially prejudicial nature to warrant reversal.”). Compare Strickland v. State, 447 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA) (any error as to the trial court’s allowance of charts which were not in evidence to go into the jury room could only be deemed harmless because the evidence against defendant was overwhelming), rev. denied, 455 So.2d 1033 (Fla.1984), with Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Mims, 453 So.2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (trial court erred in allowing a chart which was not in evidence to remain with the jury during deliberations; effect of this error could be removed only by the grant of a new trial).
In sum, the record conclusively demonstrates that the chart was not in evidence, yet was erroneously allowed into the jury room and prejudiced plaintiffs case. I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
Lead Opinion
The appellants have failed to provide a' transcript of the proceedings below or a proper substitute and, therefore, the trial court’s ruling must be presumed correct. Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150 (Fla.1980); In re Guardianship of Read, 555 So.2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516 So.2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Unlike the court in Gold, Vann & White, P.A. v. DeBerry, 1994 WL 150171 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we are unable to adequately review the entire trial court record to determine whether the contents of the notes and drawings were important enough to the issues of the case to require a new trial. See Gills v. Angelis, 312 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 330 So.2d 17 (Fla.1976); Schoeppl v. Okolowitz, 133 So.2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ request for a new trial is affirmed.
GODERICH, J., concurs.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I concur with my colleague. I only write to add an alternative ground for affirmance. Even if it is error to provide the jury with items not admitted into evidence, the exhibit must be prejudicial to warrant reversal. Bottoson v. State, 443 So.2d 962, 966 (Fla.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S.Ct. 223, 83 L.Ed.2d 153 (1984). “There is no prejudice where the information conveyed by the [unadmitted] materials merely duplicates evidence that had been properly presented to the jury at the trial.” Id. at 966.
Here, although the jury had an unadmitted exhibit in the jury room, its presence only duplicated testimony of a witness. Thus, the jury merely saw in the jury room what was properly presented to it at trial. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial and I would consequently affirm.
