Gustave v. Colmenares
In this personal injury case, we are called upon primarily to determine whether juror declarations may be used as admissible evidence to support a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. Ever since the California Supreme Court handed down the leading case on this issue, People v. Hutchinson (1969) 71 Cal.2d 342 (Hutchinson), courts have struggled to determine whether such declarations recount “overt acts†or “subjective mental processes,†evidence of the former being admissible and of the latter inadmissible. The trial court in this case decided that the declarations were inadmissible and denied the part of a motion for new trial based on juror misconduct.
Portions of the declarations arguably gave evidence of admissible “overt acts.†Because the trial court stated what its ruling would be if the declarations had been admitted, however, we affirm the order denying the motion for new trial. The defendant also failed to present evidence of error regarding excessive damages for pain and suffering. Accordingly, we also affirm the denial of the motion on the basis the damages were excessive.
Comments on Gustave v. Colmenares