Kearns v. Hall

20 Citing cases

  1. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Moorefield

    231 Va. 260 (Va. 1986)   Cited 21 times
    In Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Moorefield, 231 Va. 260, 343 S.E.2d 329 (1986), we noted that every litigant is entitled to a jury composed of individuals who "stand indifferent in the cause."

    In considering a motion to set aside when juror misconduct is alleged, the trial court has the affirmative duty "to investigate the charges and to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the jury was guilty of such misconduct." Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 743, 91 S.E.2d 648, 653 (1956). The trial court properly may summon one or more jurors to testify under oath in open court and to answer relevant questions propounded by the court and counsel about what had transpired.

  2. Evans-Smith v. Commonwealth

    5 Va. App. 188 (Va. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 130 times
    Holding that the trial judge erred by not questioning the jury about its consideration of extraneous information

    In considering a motion to set aside when juror misconduct is alleged, the trial court has the affirmative duty "to investigate the charges and to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the jury was guilty of such misconduct." Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 743, 91 S.E.2d 648, 653 (1956). The trial court may properly summon one or more jurors to testify under oath in open court and to answer relevant questions propounded by the court and counsel about what had transpired.

  3. Evans v. Commonwealth

    39 Va. App. 229 (Va. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that communication from the defendant's uncle to a juror about the defendant's propensity to commit crimes constituted extraneous evidence

    "In considering a motion to set aside when juror misconduct is alleged, the trial court has the affirmative duty `to investigate the charges and to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the jury was guilty of such misconduct.'" Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Moorefield, 231 Va. 260, 265, 343 S.E.2d 329, 332 (1986) (quotingKearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 743, 91 S.E.2d 648, 653 (1956)). Although the Supreme Court has held that "hearsay affidavits are not admissible in support of a motion for a new trial," Moorefield, 231 Va. at 265, 343 S.E.2d at 333, the Court also has noted that, "[n]evertheless, such an affidavit may be sufficient to require the trial court to investigate the matters recited in the document."

  4. Hall v. Commonwealth

    14 Va. App. 65 (Va. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 6 times
    Requiring "a showing that extraneous information has been injected into jury deliberations" or other "misconduct"

    Id. at 207, 361 S.E.2d at 447. In Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 91 S.E.2d 648 (1956), the Supreme Court said: When allegations of the misconduct of a juror are of such a nature as to indicate that the verdict was affected thereby, it becomes the duty of the court to investigate the charges and to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the jury was guilty of such misconduct.

  5. Porter v. Zook

    898 F.3d 408 (4th Cir. 2018)   Cited 42 times
    Finding the state habeas court failed to address a claim on the merits where it "did not recognize the governing legal principle" and failed to recognize the distinction between two separate claims

    The Virginia Supreme Court has held that inadmissible evidence is nonetheless "sufficient to require the court to hold a hearing" on a juror bias issue. Kearns v. Hall , 197 Va. 736, 91 S.E.2d 648, 652–53 (1956). The Virginia court explained, "When allegations of the misconduct of a jury are of such a nature as to indicate that the verdict was affected thereby, it becomes the duty of the court to investigate the charges and to ascertain whether or not, as a matter of fact, the jury was guilty of such misconduct."

  6. Ettinger v. Oyster Bay II Cmty. Prop. Owners' Ass'n

    296 Va. 280 (Va. 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, we will reverse the circuit court's ruling that Parcel E extends only to the edge of Hibiscus Drive and enter final judgment for Ettinger. "The appellate court ... shall render final judgment upon the merits whenever, in the opinion of the court, the facts before it are such as to enable the court to attain the ends of justice." Code § 8.01-681 ; Kearns v. Hall , 197 Va. 736, 744, 91 S.E.2d 648 (1956) ("Before entering final judgment, it should be reasonably apparent that the case has been fully developed in the trial court, or at least, that the parties had a fair opportunity of so developing the case, and we must be of opinion that, upon the facts before us, the parties have had a fair trial on the merits of the case, and that substantial justice has been reached."). Because all facts necessary for resolution of this appeal are contained within the stipulated record, entry of final judgment is appropriate.

  7. Jackson v. Commonwealth

    267 Va. 178 (Va. 2004)   Cited 66 times
    Finding no manifest error in the circuit court's decision refusing to strike a juror for cause where the voir dire of the prospective juror "demonstrated that the juror understood both the Commonwealth's burden of proof and the fact that the defendant did not have to present any evidence"

    Upon reviewing Picataggi's affidavit, the circuit court properly convened an evidentiary hearing to investigate further her allegations of juror misconduct. See Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 743, 91 S.E.2d 648, 653 (1956) (when allegations of jury misconduct are sufficient to indicate the verdict was affected thereby, a trial court has a duty to investigate and determine whether, as a matter of fact, the jury did engage in misconduct). The evidence presented at that hearing amply supported the court's conclusions that there was probably no misconduct and clearly no prejudice to the defendant.

  8. Robertson v. Metro. Wash. Airport Auth

    249 Va. 72 (Va. 1995)   Cited 14 times

    However, if the misconduct is discovered after the jury is discharged and the allegations are sufficient to require investigation, a trial court abuses its discretion in ruling upon a motion for a mistrial without investigating the alleged misconduct to ascertain whether it prejudiced the case. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Moorefield, 231 Va. 260, 266-67, 343 S.E.2d 329, 333 (1986) (failure to summon and examine juror to determine if prejudiced by improper remark regarding case made by prospective juror on day of trial); Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 743, 91 S.E.2d 648, 653 (1956) (failure to summon and examine jurors regarding unauthorized experiment during jury view of scene of accident). Citing these three cases, Robertson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) failing to perform "a sufficient investigation into the situation," and (2) failing to grant a mistrial "given misconduct of such a nature that prejudice might result."

  9. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Hulvey

    233 Va. 77 (Va. 1987)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that juror misconduct was not sufficient to set aside the verdict when one juror told the others that he was a lawyer and opined that the case was "garbage"

    In most cases, misconduct outside the jury room has prejudicially affected the jury's deliberation of the case by injecting facts connected with the case which had not been admitted in evidence. For example, the rule has been applied to an improper jury view, McGuire v. Howard, 203 Va. 965, 128 S.E.2d 281 (1962); Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 91 S.E.2d 648 (1956); Crockett v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 687, 47 S.E.2d 377 (1948); and Litz v. Harman, supra; and to unauthorized private conversations between jurors and third persons, Harris v. Tractor Company, 202 Va. 958, 121 S.E.2d 471 (1961); Dozier v. Morrisette, 198 Va. 37, 92 S.E.2d 366 (1956). In the present case, the trial court focused upon the publication read by Olmstead and upon his "garbage" comment as the bases for setting aside the verdict.

  10. Jefferson v. Commonwealth

    214 Va. 747 (Va. 1974)   Cited 15 times
    In Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 214 Va. 747, 204 S.E.2d 258 (1974), the court affirmed the capital murder conviction of an inmate who killed a prison guard during an escape attempt from a courthouse.

    The defendant assigns error because the defendant's trial was held in the courtroom which was the scene of the killing. He underpins this argument by citing a number of cases including Noell v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 600, 115 S.E. 679 (1923); Yeary v. Holbrook, 171 Va. 266, 198 S.E. 441 (1938); Crockett v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 687, 47 S.E.2d 377 (1948); and Kearns v. Hall, 197 Va. 736, 91 S.E.2d 648 (1956). These cases all deal with jury misconduct or an unauthorized view and are inapposite.