Tyler v. District Court In and For Adams County, 80SA144
Decision Date | 14 July 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 80SA144,80SA144 |
Parties | Donald E. TYLER, Petitioner, v. The DISTRICT COURT In and For the COUNTY OF ADAMS, State of Colorado, the Honorable Marvin E. Foote, sitting as judge of said Court, and Gregory Lyman, Clerk of said Court, Respondents. |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Donald E. Tyler, pro se.
John C. Mott, Zarlengo, Mott & Zarlengo, Denver, for Galen Marks, M.D. and Robert Larsen, M.D.
Paul D. Renner, John R. Rodman, Denver, Frank Plaut, P.C., Lakewood, for defendant Brighton Community Hospital Ass'n.
Petitioner Donald E. Tyler filed this original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 for relief in the nature of mandamus. He challenges as an abuse of discretion the trial court's ordering a mistrial when it discovered a second inconsistent signed jury verdict after the jury was discharged. We issued a rule to show cause and now make the rule absolute.
Petitioner, a former member of the medical staff of Brighton Community Hospital, filed suit against Galen Marks and Robert Larsen, physicians on the executive committee of the hospital; John Vowell, the hospital administrator; and the Brighton Community Hospital Association, seeking damages for libel, slander, breach of contract, and interference with the practice of medicine.
The trial began February 19, 1980 and concluded on March 6. The trial court gave the jury two forms for general verdicts and a set of interrogatories. When the jury returned to render the verdict, the judge received the jury's papers. The judge read into the record a verdict for the petitioner-plaintiff (the first verdict) which assessed actual damages of $682,000 and exemplary damages of $48,000. 1 The judge also read for the record the answers to the interrogatories, all but one of which were answered in the affirmative. 2 The judge then asked the jurors if this was their unanimous verdict, and they assented. Defense counsel requested a poll of the jury, and each juror responded that he or she agreed with the verdict as read by the trial court. The court accepted the verdict, ordered judgment entered in accordance with it, and discharged the jury.
A few hours later, the court advised the plaintiff and defense counsel of an irregularity in the verdict and set a hearing for late afternoon. The hearing concerned a verdict for the defendant (the second verdict) signed by the foreman which the judge's clerk found among the jury papers. The verdict had not been mentioned by the foreman when the jury returned, and the trial court did not notice it. 3 The trial court found that the two verdicts were inconsistent and granted the defendant's motion for a mistrial. Because we find that the first verdict was the decision of the jury, we vacate as an abuse of discretion the trial court's order for a mistrial.
C.R.C.P. 47 governs rendition of jury verdicts:
The record here indicates that the court followed the proper procedure for declaring and recording a jury verdict. In addition, the judge questioned each juror individually.
A verdict shall be given effect if possible. However, a court may not look beyond the face of the record to examine the thought processes of the jurors. If the intent is clear from the record, as in this case, the verdict shall be given effect. Martinez v. Huerta, 155 Colo. 555, 396 P.2d 237 (1964); Boynton v. Fox Theaters, 121 Colo. 227, 214 P.2d 793 (1950); Kinsell v. Stice, 109 Colo. 173, 123 P.2d 397 (1942); Drake v. Justice Gold Mining Company, 32 Colo. 259, 75 P. 912 (1904).
In Harper v. Blasi, 112 Colo. 518, 151 P.2d 760 (1944), unlike the case before us, there was no record of the declaration and return of the jury verdict. No one knew of an inconsistent verdict until the preparation of the record for appeal. There, the confusion of verdict forms and instructions with no record to support...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Neil v. Espinoza, 85SC425
...the defendant Neil. When the jury's intent is clear from the face of the record, it must be given effect. Tyler v. District Court, 200 Colo. 254, 256, 613 P.2d 899, 901 (1980); Rome v. Gaffrey, 654 P.2d 333, 334 (Colo.Ct.App.1982). Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court's failur......
-
Stewart ex rel. Stewart v. Rice
...the evidence of the jury's intentions. The verdict for the petitioner in open court is the verdict of the jury. Tyler v. Dist. Court, 200 Colo. 254, 257, 613 P.2d 899, 901 (1980). Abusive Practices Colorado law recognizes that jurors, upon leaving the courtroom, may encounter influences tha......
-
Marks v. District Court In and For Seventeenth Judicial Dist. of State, 81SA431
...trial judge declared a mistrial based on the conflict in the two verdicts. The order for a mistrial was reversed in Tyler v. District Court, Colo., 613 P.2d 899 (1980), where this court directed the trial judge to vacate the order for mistrial and to enter a judgment in accordance with the ......
-
Reifschneider v. City and County of Denver, 94CA1402
...to set aside the verdict because of the court's speculation that the confusion may have continued. See Tyler v. District Court, 200 Colo. 254, 613 P.2d 899 (1980); Hotel Associates of Utah & Colorado v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 152 F.R.D. 206 (D.Utah 1993); Lee v. State, 526 N.E.2d 963 (Ind.1988......