Summary
In Jones, the Supreme Court noted that "[a]fter taking the unusual step of sending for and reviewing the entire record in this case," it was convinced the Ragas exception applied.
Summary of this case from Chatman v. S. Univ. at New OrleansOpinion
No. 95-C-2530
June 28, 1996
IN RE: Jones, Janie Ms.; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Tangipahoa 21st Judicial District Court Div. "F" Number 9001092; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number CA94 1505
Granted. See order.
JCW
WFM
CDK
BJJ
JPV
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF LOUISIANA.
By his own admission, and in the judgment of five judges of the court of appeal, the actions of the trial judge in communicating with the jury were improper and so tainted the verdict of the jury as to render it unreliable. Where a jury verdict is "tainted" due to a material error at trial but an other vise complete trial record exists, the general rule is that an appellate court should, if it can, render judgment on the record. Gonzales v. Xerox, 320 So.2d 163, 165 (La. 1975). However, "[w]here a view of the witnesses is essential to a fair resolution of conflicting evidence, the case should be remanded for a new trial." Ragas v. Argonaut Southwest Ins. Co., 388 So.2d 707, 708 (La. 1980)(emphasis added). After taking the unusual step of sending for and reviewing the entire record in this case, we are convinced that this case is one in which "the weight of the evidence is so nearly equal that a first-hand view of witnesses is essential to a fair resolution of the issues." Id. We therefore vacate the decision of the court of appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on the merits.
DECREE
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR NEW TRIAL.
I would grant and docket this writ application and render an opinion after full briefing and oral argument. In all events, I disagree with the majority's not doing a Gonzales v. Xerox [320 So.2d 166 (La. 1975)] review.
LEMMON, J. would grant and docket.
BLEICH, J. not on panel.
I would grant and docket this writ application and render an opinion after full briefing and oral argument. In all events, I disagree with the majority's not doing a Gonzales v. Xerox [320 So.2d 166 (La. 1975)] review.
LEMMON, J., would grant and docket.
BLEICH, J., not on panel.