The court may grant a new trial for the following causes, or any of them:

1. (1) When the jury has received any evidence, papers or documents, not authorized by the court, or the court has admitted illegal testimony, or excluded competent and legal testimony, or for newly discovered evidence;
2. (2) When the jury has been separated without leave of the court, after retiring to deliberate upon their verdict, or has been guilty of any misconduct tending to prevent a fair and due consideration of the case;
3. (3) When the verdict has been decided by means other than a fair expression of opinion on the part of all the jurors;
4. (4) When the court has misdirected the jury in a material matter of law;
5. (5) When the verdict is contrary to the law or evidence.

(RSMo 1939 § 4124)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3734; 1919 § 4078; 1909 § 5284

(1952) Where jurors during trial were transported by sheriff and deputy sheriffs to and were quartered in residence nineteen miles from courthouse, and doctors were called and administered "shots" to two jurors in presence of sheriff both at said residence and at courthouse and some of jurors retired to restroom while others remained outside all in presence of sheriff, there was no prejudicial error. State v. Rose (Mo.), 249 S.W.2d 324.

(1953) Where in burglary case sheriff, who was one of the state's main witnesses, was observed talking to juror about a burglary case after close of evidence but before submission and the state made no showing whatever that juror was not subjected to improper influence, the verdict against defendant should be set aside. State v. Jones, 363 Mo. 998, 255 S.W.2d 801.

(1956) Where juror on voir dire in robbery prosecution failed to disclose that accessories on his automobile had disappeared and testified that such accessories were of small value and that he had forgotten the incident, the verdict would not be disturbed. State v. Townzell (Mo.), 286 S.W.2d 785.