Noll v. Lee
Decision Date | 10 October 1963 |
Citation | 221 Cal.App.2d 81,34 Cal.Rptr. 223 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Freeman A. NOLL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert E. LEE, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 27194. |
Smith, Butts & Dickman, Toxey H. Smith, Hollywood, Benjamin Reinhardt, Van Nuys, Robert S. Butts, Hollywood, for appellant.
Wyman, Finell & Rothman, Charles L. Fonarow, Beverly Hills, for respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered upon a 'nine to three' jury verdict in defendant's favor. The only assignment of error is that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial when it became known, following the receipt of the jury's verdict, that one of the jurors had taken a copy of the vehicle code into the jury room and had read to the other members of the jury certain sections of said code which had not been included in the court's instructions.
The action was one for damages for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident which occurred on the Ventura freeway on April 6, 1960. Defendant was driving a station wagon and was carrying a stepladder, an electrical extension cord and certain other materials and equipment therein. The stepladder, extension cord and several pieces of lumber fell from defendant's station wagon into the path of plaintiff's automobile. Plaintiff stopped his automobile on the center divider and then attempted to remove the fallen articles from the freeway. While so engaged he was struck by another vehicle.
The correctness of the instructions given the jury is not questioned on this appeal. In substance, these instructions set forth the law applicable to the issues of negligence and contributory negligence in cases where the plaintiff had placed himself in a dangerous position in an effort to protect the safety of others from the consequences stemming from the alleged initial negligence of the defendant. Sections of the Vehicle Code relating to 'spilled loads' (section 23114) and pedestrians (section 21954(a)) were also requested and given, together with instructions relating to the presumptions arising from violations of such statutes.
After the jury had returned its verdict, the events that form the factual basis of this appeal were disclosed. It is conceded that neither counsel nor the court should be regarded as blameworthy for failing to make an earlier discovery of the facts here presented.
The affidavit of the offending juror, which was filed in support of plaintiff's motion for a new trial, reads as follows:
'My name is Ernst Fischer and I live at 2311 Baxter St., Los Angeles, California. I served on the jury in the case of Noll versus Stoffer.
* * *'
Additional affidavits of four other members of the jury are to the effect that juror Fischer had a copy of the Vehicle Code in the jury room during their deliberations; that he read excerpts therefrom to the other jurors after they had been instructed by the trial court, and that Fischer made reference thereto on occasion.
By way of opposition to plaintiff's motion, defendant obtained and filed three counter affidavits sworn to by juror Fischer on October 5, 1962. In material part they read as follows:
(1) 'On September 15, 1962, a person came to my home and asked if he could question me regarding some of my experiences as a juror. He told me that he was a representative of a group of attorneys who were desirous of making some changes in the system of jury deliberation in this state. At no time did he tell me that he was a representative of Mr. Freeman Noll or a representative of Mr. Toxey Smith. The first time that I was certain of the fact that he was a representative of Mr. Noll and Mr. Smith was when I was definitely informed of that fact by Mr. Milton Yusim in a telephone conversation that I had with him on October 4, 1962, when he telephoned my home.
'The affidavit dated September 15, 1962, that bears my signature was completely prepared and typed by some unknown person before it was brought to me and shown to me on September 15, 1962. At no time did I dictate the content of that affidavit before it was typed. That portion of the affidavit which states 'I had it (the Vehicle Code) with me when I was accepted as a juror and while the attorneys were asking me questions before I became a juror', that portion is untrue. Although I stated in that affidavit that all jurors should have a copy of the Vehicle Code with them on all cases involving vehicles, I did not intend to imply or suggest in any way by that statement that jurors who are selected to hear a case should not follow all of the court's instructions in rendering their decision.
'I regret that I did not read the affidavit of September 15, 1962 over more carefully or I would have discovered the mistakes that are contained therein. I was told by the person who presented the affidavit to me that it was to be used in an attempt to improve the jury system by a group of attorneys who wanted to make some changes to permit typewritten copies of the court's instructions to be brought into the jury room during their deliberation. When I questioned the investigator that presented the affidavit of September 15, 1962 to me as to whether or not the statement was to be used in any way in connection with the case of Noll vs. Lee, he told me that it was not to be so used.
'Although the affidavit states that my statements were sworn to before a notary public, I was never asked to swear to any of the statements contained therein.
(2)
(3) 'I was questioned by both attorneys regarding my qualifications to sit as a juror before being selected as a juror to hear the case. I truthfully and honestly answered all such questions which were asked of me.
It may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballard v. Uribe
... ... Castaldia (1959) 51 [41 Cal.3d 597] Cal.2d 569, 572 [335 P.2d 104]), and has been extended to allow the use of juror affidavits to show that a juror ... did not intend to follow the court's instructions on the law and had concealed that intention on voir dire. (Noll v. Lee (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 81 [34 ... Page 686 ... Cal.Rptr. 223].)" (Hutchinson, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 348, 78 Cal.Rptr. 196, 455 P.2d 132.) Those are precisely the reasons for which the declarations in this case were offered ... In Hutchinson, this court went on to ... ...
-
People v. Barnum
...solely to the determination of factual questions and are bound by the law as given them by the court[.]" (Noll v. Lee (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 81, 87, 34 Cal.Rptr. 223, original italics.) There is no basis to infer defendant was convicted because the trial occurred inside a state prison; inste......
-
Kirby v. Rosell
...222 A.2d 366 (Me.1966); Bellows Falls Village Corporation v. State Highway Board, 123 Vt. 408, 190 A.2d 695 (1963); Noll v. Lee, 221 Cal.App.2d 81, 34 Cal.Rptr. 223 (1963); Palestroni v. Jacobs, 10 N.J.Super. 266, 77 A.2d 183 (Super.Ct.1950). We find these cases persuasive and hold that ext......
-
State v. Sinegal
...deliberations, a defendant cannot receive a fair trial based upon the court's instructions as he is entitled to do. Noll v. Lee, 34 Cal.Rptr. 223, 221 Cal.App.2d 81 (1963). There is "... no rule of law that would permit trial jurors to procure statutes or other law books and base their judg......
-
Appendix II Evidence Code
...to serve as a juror. E.g., Williams v. Bridges, 140 Cal.App. 537, 35 P.2d 407 (1934) (false answer on voir dire); Noll v. Lee, 221 Cal.App.2d 81, 34 Cal.Rptr. 223 (1963) (hearing denied) (false answer on voir dire); Church v. Capital Freight Lines, 141 Cal.App.2d 246, 296 P.2d 563 (1956) (m......