Schindler appealed the verdicts rendered against her, contending that the trial court erred in failing to remove certain potential jurors from the jury pool, erred in disallowing testimony concerning an autopsy, erred in failing to give a requested instruction concerning missing x-rays, and erred in denying Schindler's motion for new trial. The Nebraska Court of Appeals, in Schindler v. Walker, 7 Neb. App. 300, 582 N.W.2d 369 (1998), found no merit to any of Schindler's assigned errors and affirmed the judgments entered against Schindler. UNMC cross-appealed, challenging the portion of the judgment by the trial court in favor of Schindler on the allegation of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Additionally, I would note that a district court's inherit powers also include the broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial. Schindler v. Walker, 7 Neb. App. 300, 582 N.W.2d 369 (1998). And even when a trial court's exclusion of evidence may not be sustained as a Rule 37 sanction, it may be sustained as an exercise of a court's inherent powers.
The competency of a juror is generally presumed, and the burden is on the challenging party to establish otherwise. State v. Krutilek, 254 Neb. 11, 573 N.W.2d 771 (1998); Schindler v. Walker, 7 Neb. App. 300, 582 N.W.2d 369 (1998), affirmed 256 Neb. 767, 592 N.W.2d 912 (1999). A trial judge is not required to excuse a juror when the juror is able to decide the case fairly and impartially.
This court has previously held that where there is no court order regarding discovery under rule 37, the exclusion of evidence "may be sustained as an exercise of a trial court’s inherent powers." Schindler v. Walker , 7 Neb. App. 300, 310, 582 N.W.2d 369, 377 (1998). In Schindler v. Walker , we recognized that a district court’s inherent powers include the broad discretion to make discovery and evidentiary rulings conducive to the conduct of a fair and orderly trial.