ILNews

Justices: Jury issues don't require new trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a jury award in favor of a man accused of rape in a civil suit, ruling the jury didn't receive improper communications and the trial court didn't err in providing impasse assistance to the jury. The high court also explained how to harmonize several Indiana Trial Rules regarding whether an appellate claim of insufficient evidence may be raised for the first time on appeal.

In Susana Henri v. Stephen Curto, No. 49S02-0812-CV-641, Susana Henri appealed the jury verdict that denied her civil damages for rape and awarded Stephen Curto $45,000 on his counterclaim for tortious interference with his contract with Butler University. The two were students at the university, had too much to drink and had sex. Henri claimed it wasn't consensual and filed her civil suit against Curto.

A juror contacted Henri several days after the trial and executed an affidavit alleging various things, including issues during deliberation and an alternate juror influencing the jurors. This led to Henri's motion to correct error, which was denied by the trial court.

On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because of errors during the jury's deliberations.

But the Supreme Court didn't think there were any errors in the jury deliberations or actions of the jurors to warrant a new trial. Henri argued on appeal the jury received improper external communications and the trial court didn't properly assist them at an impasse.

The jurors received the final instructions in writing and orally that said their verdict must be unanimous, so the trial court's response through the bailiff to a jury question regarding the necessity of a unanimous verdict didn't introduce any new information nor was it prejudicial to Henri, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. Because of those instructions, the bailiff's alleged answer to the jury question that the jury had to keep deliberating until a unanimous verdict was reached wasn't coercive or result in an unfair trial, wrote the justice.

Even though a juror used her cell phone during deliberations after receiving a call and speaking to the bailiff, reversal and a new trial aren't warranted on this issue. The high court did caution trial courts on this issue, suggesting the best practice is to discourage, restrict, prohibit, or prevent access to mobile electronic communication devices during trial proceedings and deliberations.

In addition the alternate juror's noises, gestures, pacing, and exercising may be annoying, but it didn't constitute misconduct that rendered an unfair trial, wrote Justice Dickson.

The Supreme Court also rejected Henri's contention the trial court committed reversible error by failing to respond as required by Indiana Code Section 34-36-1-6 to a juror's assertion of a jury deadlock and her request to be excused from the jury after 20 minutes of deliberating. The juror's declarations don't reveal an error or omission in the final instructions sufficient to trigger the statute's requirement of mandatory action by the trial court, wrote the justice. Also, the juror wasn't the jury foreperson and her private statement to the bailiff wasn't presented on behalf of the whole jury.

The dispute over the sufficiency of the evidence to support Curto's counterclaim led the high court to consider whether an appellate claim of insufficient evidence may be raised for the first time on appeal. In order to harmonize the rules of Trial Rule 59(A) with Rules 50(A)(4) and 59(J), the justices held that such a claim is appropriately preserved during trial if it is properly asserted in a motion for judgment on the evidence filed either before the case is submitted to the jury, after submission and before a verdict is entered, or in a motion to correct error.

"We intend the phrase 'during trial' to require that a claim of insufficient evidence must be preserved by proper presentation to the trial court. Such a challenge may not be initially raised on appeal in civil cases if not previously pre-served in the trial court by either a motion for judgment on the evidence filed before judgment or in a motion to correct error," wrote Justice Dickson.

Henri failed to challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting the verdict in favor of Curto during trial by a Trial Rule 50 motion for judgment on the evidence, or by the post-trial Rule 59 motion to correct error. As such, the issue is procedurally defaulted.

The high court also denied awarding appellate attorney fees to Curto.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT