Capozzi v. Butterwei.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1949 |
| Citation | 65 A.2d 144 |
| Parties | CAPOZZI et al. v. BUTTERWEI. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Candida Capozzi and another against William Butterwei.
Verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs move for new trial.
John A. Laird, of Newark, for plaintiffs.
Frank P. Zymmer, of Newark, for defendant.
This case was tried before me and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. Application was made for a new trial and argued before me and briefs have been submitted. The basis of the application is a charge of misconduct of a juror during the trial. Testimony adduced on this motion shows that on the trial at about 5 p.m. after adjournment for the day Juror Jackson visited the scene of the accident for the purpose of observation and help in deciding the case. He observed the intersection, visited the corner store, talked with a garage employee after asking for the proprietor, and walked out in front after inquiring of the employee about the accident. The next day after the jury retired to consider its verdict, the juror advised the other jurors of his visit and of what he had observed and concluded. The fact that he went to the scene of the accident is corroborated by the testimony of the operator of service station.
It is my view that the examination of the locus in quo by a juror in a pending trial for the purpose of observation and obtaining data on which to formulate an opinion is improper, as it furnishes him with facts not proved in the case and he is not subject to cross-examination. It seems to me that such conduct of a juror not in conformity with the proper trial of the case is sufficient ground on which to set aside the verdict.
I recognize that there is a well-founded rule that testimony of jurors to impeach their verdict will not be received; but the exception to this rule is that testimony will be permitted relating to extraneous influences brought to bear upon them. We cannot inquire what effect the acquired knowledge had on the individual juror or his co-jurors when his knowledge has been communicated to them, but in this case we have proof of knowledge acquired by the juror during the trial of the case which was not disclosed in the course of the trial. This would permit the determination of the case on the action of one of the jurors based upon independent knowledge acquired by the juror outside the trial. The use of such knowledge has been held to be improper in this state in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Athorn
...37 N.J. 557, 182 A.2d 562 (1962); State v. Kociolek, 20 N.J. 92, 118 A.2d 812, 58 A.L.R.2d 545 (1955); see Capozzi v. Butterwei, 2 N.J.Super. 593, 65 A.2d 144 (Law Div.1949). And, where a juror by his comments in the jury room manifests racial or religious bigotry against a defendant, we ha......
-
State v. Kociolek
...such cases, however, to the extent it attempts to explain the actual effect of the occurrence upon the verdict. Capozzi v. Butterwei, 2 N.J.Super. 593, 65 A.2d 144 (Law Div.1949); Palestroni v. Jacobs, 10 N.J.Super. 266, 77 A.2d 183 (App.Div.1950); Panko v. Flintkote Co., 7 N.J. 55, 80 A.2d......
-
State v. Levitt
...supra; Panko v. Flintkote Co., supra; Palestroni v. Jacobs, 10 N.J.Super. 266, 77 A.2d 183 (App.Div.1950); Capozzi v. Butterwei, 2 N.J.Super. 593, 65 A.2d 144 (Law Div. 1949). Though the trial judge cannot examine the thought processes of jurors in reaching their verdict, he can receive jur......
-
Bellows Falls Village Corp. v. State Highway Bd.
...118 A.2d 812, 815, 58 A.L.R.2d 545 (Brennan, J.); Driscoll v. Gatcomb, 112 Me. 289, 92 A. 39, L.R.A.1915B, 702; Capozzi v. Butterwei, 2 N.J.Super. 593, 595, 65 A.2d 144, 145; 8 Wigmore, Edidence § 2354 (3d Ed., also McNaughton Ed. 1961); 39 Am.Jur. New Trial §§ 79, 86; 66 C.J.S. New Trial §......