Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

762 N.E.2d 1221

Tincher v. Davidson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 2002

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 2002-02-19

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2017

22 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"I‘rial .cour‘ts. are required to Izespond to JU'Y inquiries "as to any 13011}? of law arising in the case." In addition, our new Indiana Jury Rule 28 urges that trial judges facilitate and assist jurors in the deliberative process, in order to avoid mistrials. Under appropriate circumstances, and with advance consultation with the parties and an opportunity to voice objections, a trial court may, for example, directly seek further information or clarification from the jury regarding its concerns, may directly answer the jury's question (either with or without directing the jury to reread the other instructions), may allow counsel to briefly address the jury's question in short supplemental arguments to the jury, or may employ other approaches or a combination thereof.”

quoted by 9 later decisions, including Parks v. State, Ronco v. State

“remand[{ed] this case to vacate the order granting a mistrial and to enter judgment on the jury's general verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $150,000.00.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Tincher v. Davidson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-02-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SULLIVAN, Justice,

¶1concurring in result.

¶2I agree that the jury's general verdict here should not have been impeached by the calculation form and, as such, judgment should be entered for the plaintiff in the amount of $150,000.

¶3I write to express my opposition to the majority's "urgling]" trial court judges "to *1227facilitate and assist jurors in the deliberative process, in order to avoid mistrials." I do not think it proper, advisable, or (perhaps) constitutional for judges to "facilitate and assist" in jury deliberations absent the consent of the parties.

¶4I acknowledge that the majority's view reflects the spirit of our new Jury Rule 28. As the majority's opinion reflects, Jury Rule 28 (adopted over Justice Rucker's and my dissent and over the contrary unanimous recommendation of our Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure) is grounded in a goal of improved efficiency-a desire to avoid mistrials. Certainly we should strive for improved efficiency. But I believe that the prejudice to the parties and our system of trial by jury of allowing-indeed "urgling]"-judges "to facilitate and assist" in jury deliberations outweighs any benefits of improved efficiency in this regard.

¶5RUCKER, J., concurs.

/762/ne2d/1221 · .json · Public domain