Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn.App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991).
But it is not misconduct for jurors to use common sense or consider their own life experiences in reaching a verdict. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn.App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). In determining whether a juror's comments constitute extrinsic evidence rather than personal life experience, we consider whether the comments impart the kind of specialized knowledge that is provided by expert witnesses at trial.
"The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence are matters which rest within the province of the jury." Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). CR 50(a)(1) provides in pertinent part,
.Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991),review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1018 (1992). Whether a juror's statement is extrinsic evidence is a separate inquiry from whether it inheres in the verdict.
On the other hand, it is not misconduct for jurors to use common sense or consider their own life experiences in reaching a verdict. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 302, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). See, e.g., Breckenridge v. Valley Gen. Hosp., 150 Wn.2d 197, 204, 75 P.3d 944 (2003) (juror's statements regarding the manner in which an emergency room doctor would react to a particular situation, based on a juror's personal experiences visiting an emergency room, did not constitute misconduct).
Personal experience with injuries is within the realm of life experiences that a juror is expected to bring into deliberations. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). These experiences and their effect on the collective thought processes during jury deliberations inhere in the verdict and cannot be used to impeach the verdict.
The determination of juror misconduct is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and it will not be disturbed unless the court abused its discretion. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991). A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or is exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.
But the thought processes of jurors inhere in the verdict and cannot be used to impeach it. Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991); Ayers v. Johnson Johnson Baby Prods. Co., 117 Wn.2d 747, 768, 818 P.2d 1337 (1991). Even a jury's failure to follow instructions or a misunderstanding of the instructions inheres in the verdict.
"The individual or collective thought processes leading to a verdict `inhere in the verdict'". Johnson v. Carbon, 63 Wn. App. 294, 301, 818 P.2d 603 (1991), review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1018 (1992). Where a juror's affidavit describes the considerations that led to the verdict, a court may not consider it. Coleman v. George, 62 Wn.2d 840, 842, 384 P.2d 871 (1963).
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 86-2-03806-4, Michael E. Donohue, J., entered January 5, 1990. Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Shields, J., concurred in by Green, C.J., and Munson, J. Now partially published at 63 Wn. App. 294.