62 N.H. 356 | N.H. | 1882
In Tyler v. Stevens,
In State v. Hascall,
In Page v. Wheeler,
In Tenney v. Evans,
In State v. Howard,
In State v. Pike,
In State v. Ayer,
In Folsom v. Brawn,
After a verdict is returned and recorded, the affidavit of a juror will not be received to show he did not agree to the verdict. Breck v. Blanchard,
In Leighton v. Sargent,
In Boynton v. Trumbull,
The authorities are substantially agreed that affidavits of jurors ale not admissible to impeach their verdict. Gra. Wat. N. T. 1429. The rule rests upon grounds of public policy. In some jurisdictions the affidavits of jurors are not received in support of the verdict, when evidence aliunde has been introduced to impeach it, unless they are in denial or in explanation of their acts or declarations outside of the jury-room. It is thought that to admit the testimony of jurors as to what took place in the jury-room would create distrust, embarrassment, and uncertainty." Woodward v. Leavitt,
A somewhat different rule prevails in this state, and was not adopted without full consideration. In Tyler v. Steves,
Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. 487, is a case on all fours with this and affidavits of jurors were received to show that after they had found the average of their several markings, they agreed to the result after deliberation. In Jackson v. Dickenson, 15 Johns. 309, affidavits of jurors were received to show that a mistake had been made in taking their verdict. In Hix v. Drury, 5 Pick. 296, the affidavit of a juror was received to show that certain depositions were not read by the jury, he being absent when the other jurors were inquired of on the subject after they had returned their verdict.
Without examining further the numerous decisions on this question, we see no good reason for changing the rule in this state. Our former decisions, that it is not competent for jurors to testify that they misapprehended the instructions of the court (Tyler v. Stevens,
Exceptions overruled.
ALLEN, J., did not sit: the others concurred.