Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions


Touch N' Go
®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother.

 

You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. Andrea Trescot, M.D. and Algone Center, LLC v. Tabatha Foy, Mark Foy, Michael Foy, and Alissa Foy, a minor child (8/6/2021) sp-7548

Andrea Trescot, M.D. and Algone Center, LLC v. Tabatha Foy, Mark Foy, Michael Foy, and Alissa Foy, a minor child (8/6/2021) sp-7548

           Notice:   This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the P                    ACIFIC  REPORTER.  

           Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,  

                                                                                                                         

           303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email  

                                                                                                                           

           corrections@akcourts.gov.  



                       THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                       



ANDREA TRESCOT, M.D. and                                         )  

ALGONE  CENTER,  LLC,                                            )                                      

                                                                       Supreme Court No. S-17710  

                                                                 )  

                                Petitioners,                     )                                                                

                                                                       Superior Court No. 3AN-14-10021 CI  

                                                                 )  

           v.                                                    )                         

                                                                       O P I N I O N  

                                                                 )  

TABATHA FOY, MARK FOY,                                                                                      

                                                                 )    No. 7548 - August 6, 2021  

MICHAEL FOY, and ALISSA FOY, a  

                                      

                                                                 )  

minor child,  

                                                                 )  

                                                                 )  

                                Respondents.                     )  

                                                                 )  



                                                                                                                    

                      Petition for Review from the Superior Court of the State of  

                                                                                                        

                      Alaska,         Third       Judicial        District,        Anchorage,             Jennifer  

                                          

                      Henderson, Judge.  



                                                                                                            

                      Appearances:              Whitney  L.  Wilkson  and  Howard  Lazar,  

                                                                                                                   

                      Delaney Wiles, Inc., Anchorage, for Petitioners.  Charles W.  

                                                                                                                 

                      Coe,  Law  Offices  of  Charles  W.  Coe,  Anchorage,  and  

                                                                                                    

                      Colleen A. Libbey, Libbey Law Offices, LLC, Anchorage,  

                                                                                                              

                      for  Respondents.              Susan  Orlansky,  Reeves  Amodio  LLC,  

                                                                                                                   

                      Anchorage,   for  Amicus   Curiae  Alaska  Association   of  

                                                                                                                    

                      Criminal Defense Lawyers.  Margaret  Simonian, Dillon &  

                                                                                                          

                      Findley,        PC,   Anchorage,                for   Amicus           Curiae   Alaska  

                                                

                      Association for Justice.  



                                                                                                          

                      Before:  Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Maassen, Carney,  

                                                 

                      and Borghesan, Justices.  



                                           

                      WINFREE, Justice.  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

I.        INTRODUCTION
  



                    A jury entered a verdict for the defense in a medical malpractice suit,  

                                                                                                                            



finding medical negligence but also finding that the negligence did not cause harm.  

                                                                                                                                    



During later conversations with jurors, plaintiffs' representatives learned that at least  

                                                                                                                            



some jurors believed the verdict was incorrectly entered because, although there were  

                                                                                                                           



at least 10 votes (among the 12 jurors) to find that there was medical negligence, there  

                                                                                                                           



were not 10 votes to find that the medical negligence did not cause harm. Juror affidavits  

                                                                                                                     



then were prepared and filed with a motion for a new trial.  The trial court admitted the  

                                                                                                                              



affidavits into evidence and exercised its discretion to order a new trial in the interests  

                                                               



of justice.  The defendants petitioned for our review of the new trial order, which we  

                                                                                                                              



granted.  We conclude that it was error to admit the juror affidavits into evidence and,  

                                                                                                       



therefore, that there was no evidentiary basis for the trial court to grant a new trial.  We  

                                                                                                                              



reverse the order for a new trial and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the  

                                                                                                                              



defendants consistent with the jury verdict rendered in court at the close of the trial.  

                                                                                                                        



II.       FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS  

                                 



                    Tabatha Foy sought medical care for abdominal pain at Algone Center,  

                                                                                                                        



LLC in July 2012, and Dr. Andrea Trescot prescribed Reglan.   Foy reportedly then  

                                                                                                                            



developed uncontrolled body movements, and she later was diagnosed with medication- 

                                                                                                                 



induced dyskinesia caused by Reglan.   Foy, along with her husband, adult son, and  

                                                                                                                             



minor daughter, brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Trescot and Algone  

                                                                                                                        



Center (collectively Dr. Trescot).  Dr. Trescot responded that she was not negligent in  

                                



prescribing or treating Foy with Reglan and disputed Foy's claimed dyskinesia.  

                                                                                                                           



                    After trial the 12-person jury was instructed to deliberate and answer a  

                                                                                                                                 



special verdict form containing two questions:  (1) was Dr. Trescot negligent and, if so,  

                                                                                                                               



(2) was Dr. Trescot's negligence the legal cause of Foy's injuries.   The trial court  

                                                                                                                          



instructed the jury:  "At least ten [jurors] must agree to the answer to each question on  

                                                                                                                               



                                                               -2-                                                        7548
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

 the verdict form . . . . When at least ten of you reach agreement on each question that you                                                                                                                                                              



 are required to answer, your foreperson should date and sign the verdict form."                                                                                                                                                              During  



 deliberations the jury sent a note requesting a "clarification as to what constitutes a final                                                                                                                                                      



 vote."  But the jury soon sent another note stating that the answer had been found and                                                                                           



 there was no need for the court to respond. The jury later returned its verdict, answering                                                                                                                                           



 "Yes" in response to the negligence question and "No" in response to the causation                                                                                                                                                    



 question.  



                                         After the verdict was read aloud in open court, Foy requested that the court                                                                                                                                 

                                       1   The court explained the polling process to the jurors:  "I'm going to turn  

 poll the jury.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 to each of you and ask if the verdicts that I've just read were your true and correct  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               



 verdicts, and that just lets the parties know . . .   we have . . . at least ten that are in  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



 agreement with these verdicts." The court then asked each of the 12 jurors: "[A]re these  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 verdicts your true and correct verdicts?"  Each juror responded affirmatively.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



                                         The court asked if there was anything else of substance needing attention  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



 before the jury was dismissed, and the parties said there was not. The court informed the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



jurors that they were no longer prohibited from talking with others about the case and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



 that  they  were  welcome  to  talk  with  the  parties'  attorneys  about  the  attorneys'  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 performances, but the court cautioned them not to speak "about the substance of [their]  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 deliberations."  The court invited the jurors to speak with the attorneys outside of the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 courtroom or to leave contact information for the attorneys.  

                                                                                                                                                                                      



                                         Foy's attorney contacted a juror who had left contact information.  Foy's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



 attorney later stated that she was seeking feedback on the trial but that "one of the very  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                     1                   See  Alaska R. Civ. P. 49(a) ("Any party may require the jury to be polled                                                                                                                               



 as to any verdict, which is done by asking each juror if it is the juror's verdict.                                                                                                                                                         If upon   

 such polling it appears that a verdict has not been agreed upon, the jury shall be sent out                                                                                                                                                               

 for further deliberation.").                                                    



                                                                                                                               -3-                                                                                                                    7548
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

  first things [the juror] said to [her] was [']I don't agree with that verdict.['] "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Foy's  



  attorney hired a private investigator to contact jurors regarding the trial and to inquire                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



  about "their final vote[s] on the questions before the foreperson signed the jury verdict                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



  form" and the total vote count.                                                                                                                                                     The investigator contacted and interviewed jurors, and                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



  she   eventually   obtained   four   juror   affidavits   regarding   their   votes   on   the   verdict  



  questions.    The jurors stated in their affidavits that the court did not ask what their                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



  answers were to each separate question on the verdict form, and three jurors attested: "If                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



 the Court had asked me my answer to Question No. 2, I would have answered 'Yes.' "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



                                                                               Foy moved for a mistrial, relying on the affidavits to assert that the jury did                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        



 not reach a verdict on the causation question.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         A few days later the court held oral                                                                                                                                    



  argument on a motion Dr. Trescot had previously filed, and the court briefly addressed                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 the juror affidavits and the possibility of a mistrial.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Dr. Trescot later opposed Foy's                                                                                                                                   



 motion for a mistrial and moved to strike the juror affidavits.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Dr. Trescot argued that                                                                                                



juror affidavits were not permitted for purposes of impeaching a verdict except in cases                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



  of "fraud, bribery, or other obstructions of justice." Dr. Trescot also noted that Foy had                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



  failed to object to the manner in which the jurors were polled and that Foy's challenge                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      



 thus was waived.                                                                                      Foy responded that the affidavits were permissible evidence because                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 the jury had not reached a verdict.                                                                                                                                                                     Foy also asserted that she did not waive a challenge                                                                                                                                                                                            



 to the verdict because when the jury was polled there was no way to know the jury had                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



  failed to reach a verdict.                                                              



                                                                               The trial court denied Dr. Trescot's motion to strike, concluding that the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



  court was permitted to "consider affidavits or juror testimony to 'clarify a verdict,' so                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2            Because "the[] affidavits  

  long as the jurors' 'reasoning processes are not at issue.' "                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



                                        2  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                               The trial court quoted Crouse v. Municipality of Anchorage, 79 P.3d 660,  

                                                                                                           

  663 (Alaska App. 2003).  



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -4-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     7548  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

purport to show that the jury never met the [ten]-vote minimum on one part of the verdict                                                                                                                         



 they entered," the court admitted the affidavits as evidence.                                                                                                      The court scheduled an                                    



 evidentiary hearing on the mistrial motion, noting that it was "particularly interested in                                                                                                                                    



 how [Foy] contacted jurors and how [Foy] came to know about the alleged lack of                                                                                                                                              



 agreement on the issue of causation."                                                                  At the evidentiary hearing Foy's attorney and                                                                     



 investigator explained their method of interviewing and obtaining affidavits from the                                                                                                                                      

jurors.3  



                                    The trial court ultimately granted a mistrial. The court concluded that "the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



jury did not reach a verdict on the issue of causation, despite returning a verdict on  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 causation." Dr. Trescot moved for reconsideration, which the court denied. Dr. Trescot  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



petitioned for review of the superior court's grant of a mistrial, and we granted the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

petition.4  



 III.             STANDARD OF REVIEW  

                                                                    



                                    A  trial  court's  decision  to  admit  evidence  is  reviewed  for  abuse  of  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



 discretion, "[b]ut when the admissibility of evidence . . . turns on a question of law, we  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 apply our independent judgment."5                                                               When deciding whether to grant a mistrial, a trial  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 court has "wide discretion," and we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion.6  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                  3                 Although Dr. Trescot suggests that the investigation was improper, the                                                                                                                  



 record before us indicates that Foy's attorney was discreet and thoughtful in proceeding                                                                                                              

 with her investigation.     



                  4                 See  Alaska  R.  App.  P.  402  (providing  for  appellate  review  when  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 circumstances outweigh "the sound policy behind the rule requiring appeals or petitions  

                                                                                                                                                                                                              

 for hearing to be taken only from final judgments or decisions").  

                                                                                                                                                                             



                  5                Marron v. Stromstad, 123 P.3d 992, 998 (Alaska 2005).  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



                  6                 Young v. State, 374 P.3d 395, 405 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Amidon v. State ,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 565 P.2d 1248, 1261 (Alaska 1977)).  

                                                                                



                                                                                                               -5-                                                                                                     7548
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

IV.       DISCUSSION  



                    "A new trial may be granted . . . in an action in which there has been a trial  

                                                                                                                            

by jury . . . if required in the interest of justice."7  

                                                                                                                         

                                                                              The trial court admitted the juror  



                                                                                                                            

affidavits as evidence and, after an evidentiary hearing, granted a mistrial based on the  



                                                                                                                              

affidavits.  The court concluded that "the jury did not reach a verdict on the issue of  



                                                                                                                           

causation,  despite  returning  a  verdict  on  causation."                             The  court  noted  that  the  



                                                                 

discrepancies between the jurors' in-court answers and their affidavits were explained  



                                                                                                                    

by juror confusion: "[S]ome of the jurors were confused by the phrasing of the [c]ourt's  



                                                                                                             

question or by the voting process itself."   The court noted that Foy's attorney  and  



                                                                                                                        

investigator "acted diligently and properly in obtaining these affidavits" and that "there  



                                                                                                                          

is no evidence that the investigator harassed the jurors or asked any questions about their  



            

mental processes."  



                                                                                                              

                    A court may not grant a mistrial based on evidence that is inadmissible  

                                                      8   Rule 606(b) prohibits questioning a juror about  

under Alaska Evidence Rule 606(b).    



or obtaining an affidavit regarding anything that occurred during deliberations or "the  

     



effect of any matter or statement upon . . . [a] juror's mind or emotions as influencing the  

                                                                                                                             



juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict . . . or concerning the juror's  mental  

                                                                                                           



processes in connection therewith."  We previously have indicated that the prohibition  

                                                                                                                

on the use of juror affidavits to impeach a verdict is broad.9   Before the formal adoption  

                                                                                                                    



of the Rules of Evidence, we recognized:  "It is the overwhelming weight of authority  

                                                               



          7         Alaska  R.  Civ.  P.  59(a).   



          8         Mattox  v.  State,  Dep't  of  Corr.,  397  P.3d  250,  254  (Alaska  2017).   



          9         See,  e.g.,  Thomas  v.  State,  377  P.3d  939,  950  (Alaska  2016);  Titus  v.  State,  



963  P.2d  258,  261  (Alaska   1998).  



                                                              -6-                                                        7548
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                                                                                            10  

that a juror generally cannot impeach the jury's verdict by . . . testimony or affidavit."                                                      



                                                                                                                                   

And we have "repeatedly said that [we] will not consider juror affidavits for the purpose  



                                                                                                                                            

of impeaching the jury verdict, except in cases of fraud, bribery, or other obstructions of  

              11  We have described Rule 606(b) as "impos[ing] a general ban on using juror  

justice."                                                                                                                              

testimony to impeach verdicts"12 and the situations in which juror testimony is permitted  

                                                                                                                                

to impeach a verdict as "exceptional."13  Exceptions to Rule 606(b)'s general prohibition  

                                                                                                                             



permit  a  juror  to  testify  about  whether  "extraneous  prejudicial  information  was  

                                                                                                                                        



improperly  brought  to  the  jury's  attention  or  whether  any  outside  influence  was  

                                                                                                                                        

improperly brought to bear upon any juror."14  

                                                               



           10          West  v.  State,  409  P.2d  847,  852  (Alaska   1966).  



           11         Irving  v.  Bullock,  549  P.2d   1184,   1188  (Alaska   1976);  see  also  Alaska  R.  



Evid.  606(b)  cmt.  (explaining  that  "rule  reflects  the  same  spirit"  as  cases  decided  before  

adoption  of  rule).   



           12          Titus, 963 P.2d at 261.  

                                                     



           13          Thomas, 377 P.3d at 950.  

                                                                  



           14         The relevant text of Rule 606(b) provides:  

                                                                                              



                      Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict . . . a juror may  

                                                                                                                   

                      not be  questioned as to  any matter  or  statement occurring  

                                                                                                         

                      during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of  

                                                                                                                      

                      any matter or statement upon that or any other juror's mind  

                                                                                                                 

                      or emotions as influencing the juror  to assent to or dissent  

                                                                                                              

                      from  the  verdict  .  .  .  or  concerning  the  juror's  mental  

                                                                                                             

                      processes in connection therewith,  except that a juror  may  

                                                                                                                  

                      testify   on  the   question  whether   extraneous  prejudicial  

                                                                                                      

                      information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or  

                                                                                                                      

                      whether  any  outside  influence was  improperly brought  to  

                                                                                                                      

                      bear upon any juror.  Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence  

                                                                                                           

                      of  any  statement  by  the juror  concerning  a  matter  about  

                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                         (continued...)  



                                                                     -7-                                                               7548
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                             In  Titus v. State                we explained the policies animating Rule 606(b):                                                          



                             The   commentary   to   Rule   606(b)   recognizes   that   the   rule  

                             serves competing policy interests. The                                          ruleimposes                ageneral   

                            ban on using juror testimony to impeach verdicts in order to                                                               

                            protect   jurors   from   harassment,   to   encourage   free   jury  

                             deliberation, and to promote the finality of verdicts.                                                          At the   

                             same   time,   Rule   606(b)   protects   the   interest   in   avoiding  

                             injustice   by   creating   exceptions   to   the   general   ban   in  

                             situations whereirregularities                                havemarred theintegrity ofthe                              

                             deliberation   process.     The   interest  in  avoiding   injustice  

                            protected by the rule can be broken down into two related                                                        

                             concerns:   ensuring that verdicts are accurate and that they                                                        

                                                                                                      [15]  

                             are reached through a fair process.                                             



                             Dr.  Trescot asserts  that  Rule  606(b)  "generally  prohibits  a  juror  from  

                                                                                                                                                                            

testifying about the jury's deliberations"16 and "specifically limit[s] impeachment of jury  

                                                       

                                                                                                                                                                                



verdicts to inquiries about extraneous prejudicial information and outside influences."  

                                                                                                                                                                                         



Dr. Trescot contends that the affidavits are plainly inadmissible under the rule because  

                                                                                                                                                                       



they are unrelated to "extraneous prejudicial information" or "outside influences."  

                                                                                                                                                     



                             Foy responds that "Rule 606(b) is silent as to whether . . . inquiry into the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



vote is permitted."  Foy relies on several court of appeals cases to support her argument,  

                                                                                                                                                                  



 contending that the affidavits are admissible because they concern "whether or not the  

                                                                                                                                                                                 



jury reached a verdict" rather than "juror deliberations."  Foy also points to cases from  

                                                                                                                                                                             



 other jurisdictions to support the argument that jurors are permitted to impeach a verdict  

                                                                                                                                                                        



               14            (...continued)  



                            which   the   juror   would   be   precluded   from   testifying   be  

                            received  for  these  purposes.   



               15            Titus, 963 P.2d at 261-62 (citations omitted) (citing Alaska R. Evid. 606(b)  

                                                                                                                                                                          

 cmt.).  



               16            Carleson v. State, No. A-8766, 2007 WL 4322999, at  *4 (Alaska App.  

                                                                                                                                                                             

Dec. 12, 2007).  

                    



                                                                                         -8-                                                                                 7548
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

by affidavit when the purpose is showing that no verdict was reached. According to Foy,                                                                                                                                                                                                        



it "is clear . . . that the jurors did not reach a verdict because at no point did the jury have                                                                                                                                                                                               



at least ten 'yes' votes or 'no' votes on causation, as required by the instructions and the                                                                                                                                                                                                        



statute," which "requires upsetting the verdict."                                                                                       



                                               We conclude that the juror affidavits in this case are inadmissible under                                                                                                                                                                  



Rule 606(b).                                  The affidavits do not fit into a recognized exception to the Rule:                                                                                                                                                                They do   



notinvolveextraneousprejudicial informationor outsideinfluencesbrought                                                                                                                                                                                              to bear upon   

                              17         And although "the line between what is the proper subject of subsequent  

the jury.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

inquiry and what is to be insulated from review  is  a  fine one,"18  the affidavits are  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



inadmissible under Rule 606(b) because the court properly instructed the jury regarding  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

the number of votes needed,19 read the verdict in court, and polled the jury to confirm the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                           20  and nothing in these normal trial processes indicated there was an issue with  

verdict,                                                                      



the verdict.  

             



                        17                     See, e.g.                    ,  Mattox, 397 P.3d at 254 (noting Rule 606(b) contains exceptions                                                                                                                           



for "when 'extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's                                                                                                                                                                                                       

attention or                              . . . any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror' "                                                                                                                                                                                     

(quoting Alaska R. Evid. 606(b)));                                                                                      see also                     Alaska R. Evid. 606(b) cmt. ("[Rule 606(b)],                                                                                  

like the Federal Rule after which it is modeled, limits impeachment of jury verdicts to        

inquiries about extraneous prejudicial information and outside influences which may                                                                                                                                                                                                            

have been improperly brought to bear upon any juror.").                                                                                                                  



                        18                     Alaska R. Evid. 606(b) cmt.  

                                                                                                                                                   



                        19                     We previously have stated that we assume a jury follows a trial court's  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

instructions.  Cummins, Inc. v. Nelson, 115 P.3d 536, 545 (Alaska 2005).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                       20                      The Alaska Association  of Criminal Defense Lawyers and  the Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Association  for  Justice  (AACDL)  assert that more careful polling  questions would  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

increase polling process accuracy, and we agree. A trial court should thoroughly explain  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

the polling process to minimize potential juror confusion and should avoid using Alaska  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Civil Rule 49(a) language that may be unclear.  

                                                                                                                                                                      



                                                                                                                                                   -9-                                                                                                                                        7548
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                 This case therefore is distinguishable from the court of appeals' cases,                                                                                          



 which Foy suggests we should follow, holding that inquiry into a verdict is permitted                                                                                                    

                                                                                      21   Nothing on the face of the verdict form or during  

 when necessary to clarify a verdict.                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                                                                      22    In  

 the reading of the verdict or polling of the jury suggested an issue with the verdict.                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                                                                    



 light of this distinction, holding that the affidavits in this case were admissible would  

                                                                                                                                                                                                  



 clearly undermine the policies animating Rule 606(b).  If the rule were interpreted to  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             



permit attorneys to obtain and present evidence of individual jurors' votes when nothing  

                                                                                                                                                                                                



                 21              See Crouse v. Municipality of Anchorage                                                               , 79 P.3d 660, 663-64 (Alaska         



 App. 2003) (holding Rule 606(b) permitted trial court to clarify verdict after foreperson                                                                                              

 objected to verdict immediately after it was read in open court);                                                                                     Wardlow v. State                         , 2 P.2d      

 1238,   1252   (Alaska   App.   2000)   (holding   superior   court   did   not   err   by   seeking  

 clarification   of   jury's   verdict   when   two   minutes   after   jury   was   discharged   juror  

 mentioned verdict had been read improperly);                                                                 Davidson v. State, 975P.2d                                       67, 73 (Alaska     

 App. 1999) (holding trial court did not violate Rule                                                                     606(b) by seeking jury's clarification                     

 of verdict when jury returned verdicts that were inconsistent as matter of law).                                                                                                 



                 22              Foy also points to a variety of cases from other jurisdictions.  These cases  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 are not binding precedent, and they do not persuasively show Rule 606(b) permits an  

                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 attorney's ex parte questioning of jurors about their votes when no need for clarification  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

 was apparent from reading the verdict aloud, polling the jury, or the face of the verdict  

                                                                                                                                                                                                 

 form.   See Fox v. United States, 417 F.2d 84, 88-89 (5th Cir. 1969) (holding juror  

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

 testimony admissible after juror had remained silent during in-court polling); Hamburg- 

                                                                                                                                                                                         

Bremen v. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pelzer Mfg. Co., 76 F. 479, 481-82 (4th Cir. 1896) (permitting  

                                                                                                                                                                                       

juror  affidavits  to  correct  clerical  error  because  error  was  "uncontradicted  in  any  

                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 respect"); TeeVee Toons, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc., 148 F. Supp. 2d 276, 277-78 (S.D. N.Y.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                      

 2001) (holding juror testimony admissible after court's in camera interviews of jurors  

                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 and other evidence confirmed mathematical error in damages calculation); Latino v.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                             

 Crane Rental Co., 630 N.E.2d 591, 592-93 (Mass. 1994) (holding court's questioning  

 of  jurors  permitted  because  "overt  factors"  indicating  issue  with  verdict,  including  

                                                                                                                                                                                          

 audible disagreement during polling, were present); Routhier v. City of Detroit,  61  

                                                                                                                                                                                     

N.W.2d  593, 595 (Mich. 1953) (holding court's questioning of jurors permitted after  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

polling revealed verdict announced was incorrect); Kennedy v. Stocker, 70 A.2d 587,  

                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 589-90 (Vt.1950) (juror testimony admissibleafterpollingindicatedcomputation error).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                                                    -10-                                                                                              7548
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

 in the normal trial process indicated an issue with the verdict, every attorney would have                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     



 an incentive to do so after each case.                                                                                                                                                       This would increase the risk of juror harassment                                                                                                                                                



 after jury service is completed and undermine the finality of all jury verdicts.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Such an  



 interpretation also would threaten the deliberative process, as jurors likely would feel it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



necessary to discuss or explain their votes (and therefore their mental deliberations) in                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 conversations with attorneys and investigators.                                                                                                                                                                                                And as the commentary to Rule 606(b)                                                                                                                                 



 explicitly contemplates:                                                                                                   "[E]ven without pressure by counsel or litigants, many jurors                                                                                                                                                                                                                                



 are likely to have second thoughts about their verdicts after they are excused by the                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



 [c]ourt and the influence of fellow jurors dissipates[, and s]uch second thoughts might                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 cause jurors to question their verdicts if permitted to do so."                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                                                    We   therefore   hold   that   the   juror   affidavits   are   inadmissible   under  

                                                                 23           Because no admissible evidence provides a basis for granting a mistrial,  

 Rule 606(b).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



 granting the mistrial was an abuse of discretion.  

                                                                                                                                                                                             



                                  23                                AACDL argues that we "should distinguish between statements offered to                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



 impeach   a   verdict   and   statements   offered   to   show   that   no   unanimous   verdict   was  

reached" in a criminal case, because a lack of unanimity would violate the constitution.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

See   Alaska Const.                                                                                art.   I, § 11.                                                     We note that constitutional considerations may                                                                                                                                                                                                                       be  

uniquely relevant in criminal cases, but those issues are not before us in this case.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             See  

Ramos v. Louisiana                                                                                   , 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1393-402 (2020) (explaining unanimous criminal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

verdicts    are    required    by    Sixth    Amendment    of    United   States    Constitution    and  

 incorporated against States by Fourteenth Amendment);                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado                                                                                                                             ,  

  137 S. Ct. 855, 870 (2017) (holding Sixth Amendment of United States Constitution                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

requires courts to consider evidence of racial bias during criminal jury deliberations);                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Khan v. State                                                      , 278 P.3d 893, 897 (Alaska 2012) (explaining unanimous criminal verdicts                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

 are required by Alaska Constitution).                                                                                                                                                          



                                                                     To the extent Foy                                                                                argues that holding                                                                                        the juror                                             affidavits in                                                    this   case  

 inadmissible   would   violate   her   constitutional   rights,   that   argument   is   waived   as  

 insufficiently briefed.                                                                                            See Kaiser v. Sakata                                                                                                 , 40 P.3d 800, 805 n.15 (Alaska 2002)                                                                                                                                         

 (dismissing constitutional claims as waived for insufficient briefing).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



                                                                                                                                                                                                                  -11-                                                                                                                                                                                                          7548
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

V.       CONCLUSION  



                  The trial court's grant of a new trial is REVERSED, and we REMAND for  

                                                                                                               



entry of judgment in Dr. Trescot's favor consistent with the jury verdict.  

                                                                                       



                                                        -12-                                                7548
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC