State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Lehman
| Decision Date | 16 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 42350,42350 |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Oklahoma ex rel. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS of the State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. Ralph J. LEHMAN and Nina C. Lehman, Husband and Wife and Elta M. Allen, Defendants in Error. |
Appeal from the District Court of Canadian County; W. A. Lackey, judge.
John Paul Walters, Chief of Legal Div., Oklahoma Highway Dept., by James M. Peters, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.
J. Hugh Rinehart, Rinehart, Rinehart & Rinehart, El Reno, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Canadian County granting a new trial to the defendant in an action in eminent domain. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
The primary question raised on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in granting a new trial based upon a pure and unmixed question of law.
The journal entry sustaining the motion for new trial in its pertinent part contains the following language:
'The Court having heard the argument of counsel, and being fully advised, finds that said motion should be sustained for the following reason:
At the outset it should be pointed that the defendant does not agree that this is the journal entry that should have been filed in this action and attaches to his brief, an unsigned letter that purports to be from the trial judge making some reference to the journal entry that he signed. This court will not consider any matter that dehors the record and further will not consider a correction of a record which is raised only by a statement in the brief of a party and not done in accordance with the statutory means of correcting a record contained in Title 12 O.S. Sections 956.9, 959 or 965.
Plaintiff filed its petition in the district court seeking to condemn defendants property for highway purposes and defendant demanded a jury trial. The case was tried to the jury and at the opening of the trial, according to the journal entry sustaining the motion for new trial, the error complained of regarding a juror taking notes occurred. Plaintiff maintains that the trial judge committed error in granting a new trial for the reason that the great weight of the authority permits a juror to take notes during a trial. Defendant counters, not with cases in opposition to the rule that permits jurors to take notes during a trial, but with general authorities that the court is not limited to grounds stated in a motion for new trial where plaintiff did not request the trial court to state reasons for sustaining motion for new trial. They contend that there was no error or abuse of discretion for the court to grant a new trial in the interests of justice.
The only reason the trial court granted a new trial was that he allowed a juror to take notes during the trial. In granting the juror's request the court felt that he had put the defendant in a position that if he objected the juror would hold it against the defendant.
This jurisdiction has not passed upon the propriety of a juror taking notes during the course of the trial. Many jurisdictions though have considered the question. The vast majority has approved of the trial court's discretion in allowing a juror to take notes. In the case of Martin v. Atherton (1955) 151 Me. 108, 116 A.2d 629, the Maine Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sligar v. Bartlett
...The appellate court held it was within the trial court's discretion to permit jurors to take notes, citing State ex rel. Dept of Highways v. Lehman, 462 P.2d 649 (Okla.1969), and thus concluded that because notetaking is permissible, it was error for the trial court to have granted a new tr......
-
Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co.
...nor impeachable by means of an affidavit. Jenkins v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 168, 145 P. 500, 502 [1914]; State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Lehman, Okl., 462 P.2d 649, 650 [1969].4 In Miller v. B.F. Goodrich Co., No. 69,636, by unpublished September 25, 1989 order, this court retroactively ......
-
Wetsel on Behalf of Wetsel v. Independent School Dist. I-1
...v. Price, Okl., 471 P.2d 894, 895-896 [1970].18 Kriewitz v. Taylor, 172 Okl. 227, 45 P.2d 527, 529 [1935]; State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Lehman, Okl., 462 P.2d 649, 650 [1969].19 The same argument was pressed by the defendants in their predecisional motion for dismissal of this appeal.......
-
Hadnot v. Shaw
...controversy exists." (Emphasis added.)14 Frey v. Independence Fire and Cas. Co., supra note 10 at 20; State ex rel. Dept. of Highways v. Lehman, Okl., 462 P.2d 649, 650 (1969); In re Hess' Estate, Okl., 379 P.2d 851, 859 (1963).15 Eckel v. Adair, Okl., 698 P.2d 921, 924 (1985).16 Guinn v. C......