Matthew D. Morris v. Elizabeth W. Morris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel:
08/30/2013
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s ,
300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2013
2110741
Matthew D. M o r r i s
v.
E l i z a b e t h W. M o r r i s
Appeal from Baldwin C i r c u i t
(CV-08-901167)
Court
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
MOORE, J u d g e .
The o p i n i o n o f December 2 1 , 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n , a n d t h e
following i s substituted therefor.
2110741
In
the
claims
her
of
proceedings
below,
Elizabeth
f a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t and
f o r m e r h u s b a n d , M a t t h e w D.
assault
trial
on
awarding
the
jury's
verdict,
c o m p e n s a t o r y damages and
t o t a l damages a w a r d o f
a new
trial,
trial
court denied.
and
Morris.
B a l d w i n C i r c u i t C o u r t ("the
reversing
the
$200,000.
a trial,
the
Elizabeth
in
damages, f o r a
Matthew f i l e d
A l a . R.
$75,000
a motion
C i v . P.,
for
the
Matthew then a p p e a l e d the judgment t o
the
of
trial
our
court's
filed
an
application
on
on
for
rehearing,
June 4,
the
appeal to
12-2-7(6).
After
original
j u d g m e n t and
g r a n t Matthew's motion
for
§
opinion
to
court
against
which
court
before t h i s
battery
$125,000 i n p u n i t i v e
p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59,
issuance
filed
c o u r t " ) e n t e r e d a judgment
p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975,
court's
Morris
After
A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , w h i c h t r a n s f e r r e d
court,
W.
trial,
w h i c h was
this
submission
d i r e c t i n g the
a new
this
trial
Elizabeth
heard
orally
2013.
Facts
Elizabeth
Elizabeth
had
separated
in
and
Matthew
given
early
birth
fall
of
were
to
formerly
two
2006,
children,
with
c h i l d r e n r e m a i n i n g i n t h e m a r i t a l home.
2
married.
the
Elizabeth
After
parties
and
On November 17,
the
2006,
2110741
M a t t h e w , a f t e r t e l e p h o n i n g E l i z a b e t h o v e r 20 t i m e s , a r r i v e d a t
the
marital
reconcile
home l a t e
with
Elizabeth.
e n d e d up s t a y i n g
had
next
parties'
parties'
visit,
she
remained.
Elizabeth
ate breakfast
After
Elizabeth
together
at her parents'
returned
to
the marital
I n the early
that
and
which,
o f f the
home f o r an o v e r n i g h t
home
morning hours
h i d her Adderall,
dropped
where
Matthew
o f t h e next day,
Elizabeth
testified,
A c c o r d i n g t o E l i z a b e t h , Matthew, w h i l e i n
a rage, p l a c e d h e r i n a h e a d l o c k and s t r u c k
causing her to bleed.
had
Adderall
shopping center t o purchase c l o t h i n g f o r
child
i n f u r i a t e d Matthew.
Matthew
for Elizabeth.
children.
older
to Elizabeth,
a t times s n o r t i n g
day t h e p a r t i e s
traveled to a local
the
a p p a r e n t l y i n an a t t e m p t t o
According
a l l night,
been p r e s c r i b e d
The
at night,
her
repeatedly,
A f t e r w a r d s , when M a t t h e w r e a l i z e d he
" c r o s s e d t h e l i n e , " he t o l d E l i z a b e t h t h a t s h e w o u l d have
t o do what he s a i d u n t i l he c o u l d
f i g u r e o u t what t o d o .
E l i z a b e t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t Matthew then t u r n e d o f f a l l t h e
lights,
shut the b l i n d s ,
laundry
room,
where
he
and o r d e r e d E l i z a b e t h
found
a
sock
and t r i e d
a r o u n d , o r s t u f f i t i n t o , E l i z a b e t h ' s mouth.
3
t o go t o t h e
to t i e
i t
Matthew then had
2110741
Elizabeth
crawl
experience
t o h e r bedroom
anxiety
attacks.
closet,
Matthew
where
gave
she b e g a n t o
Elizabeth
some
p r e s c r i b e d a n x i e t y m e d i c a t i o n , b u t h e r symptoms d i d n o t a b a t e .
Matthew then
instructed Elizabeth
to crawl
t o t h e bathroom,
where he p o u r e d c o l d w a t e r o v e r h e r i n an a t t e m p t t o c u r b t h e
panic
attack.
to suffer,
Matthew
s t a t e d t h a t he w o u l d t a k e h e r t o t h e emergency room.
At that
point,
put
When E l i z a b e t h
continued
Matthew s t r i p p e d E l i z a b e t h
clean
clothes
on h e r .
He
e m e r g e n c y room, w a r n i n g h e r t h a t
of her bloody clothes
then
drove
Elizabeth
and
to the
i f she t o l d anyone what h a d
h a p p e n e d he w o u l d k i l l h e r a n d r e m i n d i n g h e r t h a t he h a d t h e i r
daughter.
Elizabeth
during
which
denied,
upon
spent
time
several
hours
she d i d n o t r e p o r t ,
any d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e .
discharge,
Elizabeth
i n t h e emergency
and
testified
they
that,
i n fact
she a c t u a l l y
Matthew p i c k e d
up E l i z a b e t h
returned
some
time
to
the m a r i t a l
later,
t o grab her c e l l u l a r
not
a n d she t e l e p h o n e d h e r m o t h e r , who l i v e d
to
ask f o r help.
She t h e n
telephone while
returned
home.
she s e i z e d
opportunity
looking
room,
an
M a t t h e w was
to the kitchen,
nearby,
where
M a t t h e w was a b o u t t o s n o r t c r u s h e d A d d e r a l l , a n d she b l e w t h e
4
2110741
drugs o f f the t a b l e .
M a t t h e w a g a i n became e n r a g e d , t h r e w h e r
t o t h e g r o u n d , a n d s t o m p e d on h e r t h r e e
leg
and
once
on
screaming i n pain
her neck.
While
times,
she
twice
l a y on
on h e r
the
floor
f r o m a b r o k e n l e g , Matthew w a l k e d q u i c k l y
out t h e door, p a s s i n g
E l i z a b e t h ' s mother and t h e p a r t i e s ' son
who h a d j u s t a r r i v e d .
Matthew
d i d n o t deny
denied the other
that
he s n o r t e d
Adderall,
b u t he
aspects o f E l i z a b e t h ' s account o f the events
l e a d i n g up t o h e r i n j u r y .
As f o r how E l i z a b e t h h u r t h e r l e g ,
M a t t h e w t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e he was i n t h e k i t c h e n , E l i z a b e t h
had
come up b e h i n d h i m i n a r a g e a n d t h e y b o t h
floor.
According
t o M a t t h e w , when he t r i e d
fell
to the
t o p i c k h e r up,
E l i z a b e t h p u l l e d h i m down on t o p o f h e r a n d began t o k i c k h i m
in
the groin, causing
him t o f a l l
on h e r . He t e s t i f i e d
that
when he saw E l i z a b e t h ' s m o t h e r g e t t i n g o u t h e r a u t o m o b i l e w i t h
an u p s e t l o o k on h e r f a c e , he l e f t b e c a u s e he d i d n o t want t o
confront
her.
At t h a t time,
according
t o M a t t h e w , he d i d n o t
know t h a t E l i z a b e t h h a d b r o k e n h e r l e g , b u t , he s a i d , he l a t e r
assumed t h a t t h e b r e a k h a d o c c u r r e d
when he f e l l
on h e r .
A f t e r l e a v i n g t h e m a r i t a l home, M a t t h e w d r o v e h i s v e h i c l e
through a r e d l i g h t ,
striking
t h e a u t o m o b i l e o f an
5
off-duty
2110741
corrections officer.
relation
to
that
misdemeanor
He l a t e r p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a f e l o n y i n
accident;
domestic
he
violence
also
for
pleaded
his
guilty
altercation
to
with
Elizabeth.
Evidentiary
Issues
Matthew argues t h a t the t r i a l
him
from i n t r o d u c i n g evidence
falsely
accused
accused
other
convicted
abused
of
her
father
credibility
and
that
tends
that
t h a t E l i z a b e t h had
of raping
of
h e r , had
abusing
Matthew
to
prove
the j u r y
argues
that
should
e v i d e n c e when d e t e r m i n i n g
falsely
h e r , had
on m u l t i p l e o c c a s i o n s ,
p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs.
evidence
erred i n precluding
indicating
paramours
of s h o p l i f t i n g
foregoing
consider
h e r own
court
been
and h a d
that
Elizabeth
have b e e n
long
a l l the
lacked
allowed
to
whether E l i z a b e t h ' s
a c c o u n t o f t h e e v e n t s l e a d i n g t o h e r i n j u r i e s was b e l i e v a b l e .
At the outset of the t r i a l , E l i z a b e t h f i l e d a motion i n l i m i n e
s e e k i n g t o e x c l u d e most o f t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e ,
pursuant to
R u l e 403, A l a . R. E v i d . ( " A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t , e v i d e n c e may
excluded
the
be
i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o u t w e i g h e d by
danger of u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e ,
misleading
the j u r y ,
o r by
confusion
considerations
6
of the i s s u e s , or
o f undue
delay,
2110741
waste
of
time,
evidence.").
or
The
1
needless
trial
presentation
court
of
cumulative
c o n d i t i o n a l l y granted the
motion.
During the t r i a l ,
indicating
that,
Matthew's c o u n s e l
during
her h o s p i t a l
introduced
stay
evidence
f o r her anxiety
a t t a c k , E l i z a b e t h h a d d e n i e d on an a d m i s s i o n f o r m t h a t s h e was
i n an a b u s i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p o r t h a t s h e f e a r e d f o r h e r p h y s i c a l
safety.
E l i z a b e t h admitted that
explaining
further
that
she had o n l y
clarifying
that
she had l i e d
been
being
she h a d been
on t h a t
"compliant"
embarrassed
form,
and
about h e r
s i t u a t i o n , h a v i n g grown up i n a home f r e e o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e
and
having
domestic
never
been
violence.
in a
Matthew's
whether E l i z a b e t h had ever
molested
Matthew's
further,
her.
Elizabeth
counsel
prior
ultimately sustained
counsel
told
anyone
r e p l i e d that
attempted
Elizabeth's
relationship
counsel
to question
objected
involving
then
inquired
as t o
that
her f a t h e r had
she h a d n o t .
When
h e r on t h a t
point
and t h e t r i a l
court
the objection.
E l i z a b e t h a l s o moved t o e x c l u d e , u n d e r R u l e 609, A l a .
R. E v i d . , a n y e v i d e n c e o f any c o n v i c t i o n f o r s h o p l i f t i n g t h a t
was o v e r two y e a r s o l d .
1
7
2110741
Matthew
had
O g b u r n , who
had
E l i z a b e t h had
earlier
proffered
stated that, while
confided
the
on
l a t e r confronted
f a t h e r and m o t h e r a b o u t t h e a c c u s a t i o n ,
lying.
The
trial
witness
would
court
also
same i n f o r m a t i o n
rape a c c u s a t i o n
accusation,
t o him.
was
that
p r o v e t h a t E l i z a b e t h had
members h a r m i n g h e r .
father
had
Elizabeth's
a proffer that
E l i z a b e t h had
both
was
another
conveyed
the
argued that
the
t h a t the evidence tended to
l i e d i n the
Matthew's
Bahamas,
stating that Elizabeth
Matthew's c o u n s e l
u n f o u n d e d and
Julia
and t h a t t h e y had
also received
testify
of
a t r i p to the
i n Ogburn t h a t E l i z a b e t h ' s
r a p e d E l i z a b e t h , t h a t O g b u r n had
l a u g h i n g l y d e n i e d the
testimony
p a s t a b o u t male
counsel
contended
family
that
the
j u r y s h o u l d a s s e s s t h a t e v i d e n c e when w e i g h i n g t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
of
Elizabeth's
allegations
against
Matthew,
especially
c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e y were t h e o n l y two w i t n e s s e s t o t h e
t h a t had
In
l e d to her
Ex
parte
broken l e g .
Loyd,
580
So.
2d
1374
supreme c o u r t r u l e d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t who
sodomy
had
permitted
victim
had
been
to
prejudiced
introduce
falsely
event
during
evidence
accused,
or
8
(Ala.
our
had b e e n c o n v i c t e d
his
trial
indicating
had
1991),
by
not
that his
threatened
to
of
being
alleged
falsely
2110741
accuse, others
of sexual misconduct.
t h a t the p r o f f e r e d evidence,
The supreme c o u r t
ruled
i n which the v i c t i m admitted
that
she h a d f a l s e l y a l l e g e d s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t a g a i n s t o t h e r men i n
the
past,
tended
t o show t h e v i c t i m ' s " m a n i p u l a t i v e
use
of
f a l s e c h a r g e s and t h r e a t s o f s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t t o a c h i e v e
her
desires."
the
580
e v i d e n c e was
the
So.
2d
at
1376.
r e l e v a n t t o whether
c r i m e o f w h i c h he was
merely
The
continuing
accusations
to
her
court
manipulate
that
t h e d e f e n d a n t had
accused or "whether
habit
held
of
making
persons
around
P e e p l e s v. S t a t e , 681 So. 2d 236, 238
committed
t h e v i c t i m was
threats
and
her."
false
Id.
In
( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) , o u r supreme
c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t i t had h e l d i n Loyd t h a t a v i c t i m ' s p r i o r
a l l e g a t i o n s o f s e x u a l abuse t h a t a r e d e m o n s t r a t e d t o be
false
are g e n e r a l l y a d m i s s i b l e i n c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g s i m i l a r
allegations.
In
this
civil
a c t i o n , E l i z a b e t h was
not
attempting
to
p r o v e t h a t M a t t h e w h a d s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d h e r , so t h e e v i d e n c e
of the a l l e g e d l y f a l s e rape a l l e g a t i o n a g a i n s t her f a t h e r
not
relevant
which
t o whether
Matthew had
E l i z a b e t h complained
continuing
a
habit
of
or whether
making
false
9
committed
the
E l i z a b e t h was
accusations
of
acts
was
of
merely
sexual
2110741
misconduct.
The
e v i d e n c e was
more i n t h e n a t u r e o f an
t o i m p e a c h E l i z a b e t h as t o p r i o r bad
R.
Evid., provides,
in pertinent
acts.
attempt
Rule 608(b), A l a .
part:
" S p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e s of the conduct of a w i t n e s s , f o r
the purpose of a t t a c k i n g or s u p p o r t i n g the w i t n e s s ' s
credibility,
other
than c o n v i c t i o n of crime
as
p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 609, [ A l a . R. E v i d . , ] may n o t be
i n q u i r e d i n t o on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n
of the w i t n e s s
n o r p r o v e d by e x t r i n s i c e v i d e n c e . "
M a t t h e w was
the
credibility
against
him,
f a t h e r of
Rule
her
So.
2d
i n excluding
physician
such
had
on
alleged
trial
on
We
allow
416,
417
that
f a l s e l y accused
occasions
inquiry.
( A l a . 1993)
was
sexual
See
as
d i d not
had
sexually
consider
Matthew's
the
did
v.
not
defendanther
because
attempt
to
impeach
assaulted
err i n excluding
past.
a l s o Gober
court
her
against
a c o l l a t e r a l matter i n t r i a l
cannot
i n the
(trial
assault
impermissible
attacking
allegations
testimony of former p a t i e n t t h a t
physician
court
a t l e a s t two
committed
evidence
physician
avowed p u r p o s e o f
t o p r o v e t h a t E l i z a b e t h had
raping
628
f o r the
of E l i z a b e t h ' s d o m e s t i c - v i o l e n c e
608(b) d o e s n o t
Khalaf,
err
attempting,
i n which
her).
plaintiff
Thus,
the
evidence.
argument
regarding
the
e x c l u s i o n o f any e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o E l i z a b e t h ' s a l l e g e d p a s t
false domestic-violence
complaints.
10
The
record indicates that
2110741
the
of
trial
that
court
d i d not a b s o l u t e l y p r o h i b i t the i n t r o d u c t i o n
evidence,
but, rather,
indicated that
the evidence
m i g h t be a d m i t t e d upon f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e
of the t r i a l .
As o u r supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d , M a t t h e w was
r e q u i r e d t o attempt t o admit h i s evidence a t t r i a l ,
the
motion i n l i m i n e , i n order
subject to
to preserve the o b j e c t i o n
he
now r a i s e s :
"'In keeping with the v e s t i n g of broad d i s c r e t i o n i n
the t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s area, i t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d
t h a t t h e g r a n t i n g o f a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e c a n n e v e r be
r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The n o n - m o v i n g p a r t y may r e p e a t a t
t r i a l , p r e f e r a b l y out of the hearing of the j u r y ,
his
request f o r permission to prove the contested
matter. This o f f e r of proof i s r e q u i r e d i n order t o
i s o l a t e the e r r o r f o r appeal. I t i s t h i s r e f u s a l at
t r i a l to accept that p r o f f e r e d evidence, not the
g r a n t i n g of the p r e t r i a l motion i n l i m i n e , that
s e r v e s as t h e b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Of c o u r s e ,
t h i s a b i l i t y t o b r i n g up t h e m a t t e r a s e c o n d t i m e
w o u l d n o t be a v a i l a b l e i f c o u n s e l h a d r e q u e s t e d and
the judge had g r a n t e d a p r o h i b i t i v e - a b s o l u t e motion
in limine.
B u s h v. A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u Mut. C a s . I n s . Co, 576 So. 2d 175,
177
(Ala.
( A l a . 1991)
(quoting
State
v. Askew,
455 So. 2d 36,
37
C i v . App. 1 9 8 4 ) , c i t i n g i n t u r n C. Gamble, The M o t i o n i n
Limine:
A P r e t r i a l P r o c e d u r e T h a t Has Come o f Age, 33 A l a . L.
Rev.
(1981)).
1
asserted
that
Although
Elizabeth
Matthew's
had r o u t i n e l y
11
counsel
falsely
several
reported
times
her
2110741
past
paramours
f o r domestic
violence,
Matthew never
p r o f f e r o f any e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h a t a l l e g a t i o n .
made a
Thus, t h e
i s s u e may n o t now be r a i s e d on a p p e a l .
The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n i n l i m i n e i n r e g a r d t o
Elizabeth's
shoplifting
convictions
from
2008
and
2009,
a b s o l u t e l y p r o h i b i t i n g Matthew from i n t r o d u c i n g any e v i d e n c e
regarding
those
convictions.
Matthew a s s e r t s
that,
because
s h o p l i f t i n g i s a crime o f moral t u r p i t u d e and d i s h o n e s t y , t h e
c o n v i c t i o n s were a d m i s s i b l e t o show t h a t E l i z a b e t h was n o t a
credible
person.
Under
Rule
609(a)(2),
A l a . R.
Evid.,
e v i d e n c e t h a t any w i t n e s s has been c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m e
be
admitted i f i t "involved dishonesty or false
r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e punishment.
387
noted
that,
statement,"
However, i n M a x w e l l v . S t a t e ,
So. 2d 328 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 0 ) ,
Appeals
shall
depending
the Court of C r i m i n a l
on
the
circumstances,
s h o p l i f t i n g may o r may n o t be a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g d i s h o n e s t y o r
f a l s e s t a t e m e n t a n d t h a t , u n d e r R u l e 6 0 9 , t h e b u r d e n r e s t s on
2
the proponent
of the evidence t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the crime
within
classification.
such
Matthew
made
no
M a x w e l l d i s c u s s e d f e d e r a l R u l e 609, w h i c h
i n a l l r e s p e c t s t o t h e c u r r e n t Alabama r u l e .
2
12
attempt
fell
to
i s identical
2110741
explain
and,
the d e t a i l s
therefore,
evidence.
for
the
trial
court
convictions,
properly
excluded
T h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t may have e x c l u d e d
the
the evidence
a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n does n o t a f f e c t t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h e
ruling.
2d
of E l i z a b e t h ' s s h o p l i f t i n g
See Unum L i f e I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a v . W r i g h t , 897 So.
1059, 1082 ( A l a . 2004)
Stokes
Chevrolet,
(quoting
i n turn Liberty Nat'l Life
Alabama
Health
2003))
Motors
I n c . , 885 So. 2d 119, 124
quoting
(Ala.
General
C o r p . v.
(Ala.
2003),
I n s . Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y o f
Servs.
Found.,
P.C., 881 So. 2d 1013, 1020
("'This
[c]ourt
may
affirm
a
j u d g m e n t on " a n y v a l i d l e g a l g r o u n d p r e s e n t e d
trial
court's
by t h e r e c o r d ,
r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d ,
o r even i f
i t was r e j e c t e d , b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " ' " ) .
The
trial
introducing
c o u r t a l s o a b s o l u t e l y p r o h i b i t e d Matthew
evidence
of E l i z a b e t h ' s past
illicit
drug use.
M a t t h e w a r g u e s t h a t " [ t ] h e j u r y was n o t a l l o w e d
t o hear
Elizabeth
which
increase
had long
abused p r e s c r i p t i o n drugs,
the mental impairment or confusion
she made t h e a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t [ M a t t h e w ] . "
questioned
her
use
E l i z a b e t h ' s medical
of
witnesses
p r e s c r i p t i o n medication
13
during
that
helped
the time
However, M a t t h e w
at length
at
from
t h e time
regarding
of the
2110741
incident.
I n t h a t q u e s t i o n i n g , Matthew e l i c i t e d
that Elizabeth's medications,
alter
the
her perception
trial
court
when u s e d i n c o m b i n a t i o n ,
and r e c o l l e c t i o n
permitted
information
Matthew
of events.
to
In short,
introduce
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t E l i z a b e t h may have been m e n t a l l y
the time
she made
could
evidence
impaired or
confused
during
her accusations
Matthew.
Thus, M a t t h e w was n o t p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e e x c l u s i o n o f
further evidence regarding E l i z a b e t h ' s past
against
drug abuse.
See
R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. P. ("No j u d g m e n t may be r e v e r s e d o r s e t
a s i d e , n o r new t r i a l
granted
i n any c i v i l o r c r i m i n a l c a s e on
the ground of m i s d i r e c t i o n of t h e j u r y , the g i v i n g or r e f u s a l
of s p e c i a l charges o r t h e improper admission
evidence
appeal
of
... u n l e s s
i s taken
the
entire
or r e j e c t i o n of
i n the opinion of the court t o which the
o r a p p l i c a t i o n i s made, a f t e r an
cause,
i t should
c o m p l a i n e d o f has p r o b a b l y
appear
injuriously
examination
that
the
error
affected substantial
rights of the p a r t i e s . " ) .
Matthew
next
argues
that
the t r i a l
r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w him t o t e s t i f y
case-in-chief,
Elizabeth
called
court
erred
i n h i s own d e f e n s e .
Matthew
as
a
in
In her
witness.
M a t t h e w ' s c o u n s e l a s k e d h i m one q u e s t i o n a n d t h e n r e s e r v e d t h e
14
2110741
right
to
call
Matthew
again
during
h i s case-in-chief.
However, M a t t h e w was n o t c a l l e d as a w i t n e s s b e f o r e t h e t r i a l
c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d on t h e p e n u l t i m a t e d a y o f t h e t r i a l
parties
had " e s s e n t i a l l y
subject
rested" their
t o one a d d i t i o n a l
witness
respective
being
morning o f t h e l a s t day o f t h e t r i a l ,
that the
called.
cases,
On t h e
t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange
took place o u t s i d e the presence of the j u r y :
"[MATTHEW'S COUNSEL]:
wants t o t e s t i f y .
"THE COURT:
testified.
He
T h e r e i s a -- M a t t h e w M o r r i s
wants
to
"[ELIZABETH'S COUNSEL]:
He's
already
They done r e s t e d .
"THE COURT: He's a l r e a d y
"[ELIZABETH'S COUNSEL]:
testify?
testified.
They done r e s t e d .
"THE COURT: Yeah. B o t h s i d e s have r e s t e d . A l l I w i l l
a l l o w now i s r e b u t t a l .
"[ELIZABETH'S COUNSEL]: You c a n ' t r e o p e n t h e c a s e
when we're g e t t i n g r e a d y t o a r g u e t h e c a s e . You
rested.
"[MATTHEW'S COUNSEL]: I'm j u s t t e l l i n g y o u . He t o l d
me t h i s m o r n i n g a n d j u s t now a g a i n t h a t he w a n t e d t o
testify.
"THE COURT: No, I'm n o t g o i n g t o a l l o w a n y r e o p e n i n g
of t h e t e s t i m o n y .
"[MATTHEW'S
rebuttal?
COUNSEL]:
Judge,
15
c a n he
testify
as
2110741
"THE COURT: No, no."
In h i s b r i e f
on a p p e a l ,
M a t t h e w makes a s e v e n - s e n t e n c e
argument i n s u p p o r t o f r e v e r s i n g t h e j u d g m e n t on t h e g r o u n d
that the t r i a l
court
argument c o n t a i n s
refused
t o permit him t o t e s t i f y .
n o t one c i t a t i o n
That
to a u t h o r i t y , although i t
a l l e g e s t h a t M a t t h e w ' s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s were v i o l a t e d .
noted
above,
research
party.
App.
this
court
f o r a party
i s not required
or to c r a f t
Asam v. D e v e r e a u x ,
1996) .
t o conduct
rested
of a
(Ala. C i v .
Furthermore, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d that the d e c i s i o n
whether t o reopen a case f o r f u r t h e r testimony
has
legal
an argument on b e h a l f
686 So. 2d 1222, 1224
As
the d i s c r e t i o n of the t r i a l
court.
B r o o k s v. Cox, 285 A l a . 267, 269, 231 So. 2d 302, 304
(1970);
Mooneyham
(1920)
i s within
after a party
v. H e r r i n g ,
204 A l a . 332, 333, 85
("But i t seems t o be w e l l s e t t l e d
abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e t r i a l
case t o admit f u r t h e r evidence,
the e v i d e n c e and i t b e i n g
court
So. 390, 391
that
i t i s n o t an
to refuse
where t h e p a r t y ,
a v a i l a b l e , neglected
t o open a
knowing o f
to offer i t i n
t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e , a n d g i v e s no s a t i s f a c t o r y e x c u s e f o r s u c h
neglect.");
So.
2d
H a r t s e l l e Real
451,
452
Estate
& I n s . Co. v. A t k i n s ,
( A l a . C i v . App.
16
1983)
("To
permit
426
the
2110741
reopening
after
[a
party]
ha[s]
d i s c r e t i o n of the c o u r t . " ) .
rested
is
within
the
We t h e r e f o r e d e c l i n e t o c o n s i d e r
M a t t h e w ' s argument on t h i s i s s u e f u r t h e r .
F i n a l l y , Matthew m a i n t a i n s
permitting
that the t r i a l
Elizabeth to introduce
court erred i n
the testimony
e x p e r t s t h a t had n o t been d i s c l o s e d b e f o r e t r i a l .
the
trial
court
had
granted
exclude those experts
Matthew's m o t i o n
from t e s t i f y i n g
of
medical
Originally,
i n limine
as t o t h e i r
to
diagnosis
and t r e a t m e n t o f E l i z a b e t h f o r c o m p l e x r e g i o n a l p a i n syndrome,
but,
during
deposition
Matthew
the
trial,
testimony
argues
the
on t h a t
generally
i t ; however,
point
that
e v i d e n c e and t h a t t h e t r i a l
allowing
trial
court
t o be
he
was
allowed
read
their
to the j u r y .
prejudiced
by
that
court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n
i n his brief
to this
f a i l s t o c i t e any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y g o v e r n i n g
of u n d i s c l o s e d e x p e r t testimony.
court,
Matthew
the a d m i s s i b i l i t y
A party's f a i l u r e to provide
a d e v e l o p e d l e g a l a r g u m e n t , s u p p o r t e d by r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y ,
leaves
t h i s c o u r t w i t h no i s s u e t o r e v i e w .
W h i t e Sands G r p . ,
L.L.C.
v.
1058
PRS
I I , LLC,
998
So.
2d
("Rule 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) [ ,
A l a . R. App. P.,]
in
discussions
briefs
contain
17
of
1042,
( A l a . 2008)
r e q u i r e s t h a t arguments
facts
and
relevant
legal
2110741
a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t s u p p o r t t h e p a r t y ' s p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do
the arguments are
not,
waived.").
J u r y Charge
Matthew contends t h a t the t r i a l
t h e j u r y on p u n i t i v e damages.
jury,
i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , as
The
court erred i n charging
trial
court instructed
the
follows:
" P u n i t i v e damages a r e a w a r d e d t o a p l a i n t i f f t o
punish a defendant f o r wrongful
c o n d u c t and
to
p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c by d e t e r r i n g o r d i s c o u r a g i n g t h e
D e f e n d a n t and o t h e r s f r o m d o i n g t h e same o r s i m i l a r
wrongs i n t h e f u t u r e . ... [The] P l a i n t i f f must have
p r o v e n by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e
Defendant c o n s c i o u s l y or d e l i b e r a t e l y a c t e d toward
the
Plaintiff
with
oppression,
wantonness,
or
malice.
" O p p r e s s i o n means c a u s i n g a p e r s o n t o u n d e r g o
c r u e l and u n j u s t h a r d s h i p i n k n o w i n g d i s r e g a r d o f
t h a t p e r s o n ' s r i g h t s . Wantonness i s c o n d u c t t h a t i s
c a r r i e d on w i t h a r e c k l e s s o r c o n s c i o u s d i s r e g a r d o f
the r i g h t s or s a f e t y of o t h e r s . M a l i c e i s the
i n t e n t i o n a l d o i n g of a wrongful a c t w i t h o u t j u s t
c a u s e o r e x c u s e , e i t h e r w i t h an i n t e n t t o i n j u r e t h e
person or p r o p e r t y of another person or e n t i t y or
u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t t h e l a w w i l l i m p l y an e v i l
intent."
After
the
jury
retired
to
the
jury
room, b u t
before
their
d e l i b e r a t i o n s b e g a n , M a t t h e w ' s c o u n s e l o b j e c t e d as f o l l o w s :
"We t a k e e x c e p t i o n t o you c h a r g i n g t h e j u r y t h a t
t h e y can f i n d l i a b i l i t y b a s e d on a w a n t o n a c t . The
only
allegation
in
the
complaint
is
for
an
i n t e n t i o n a l a c t . W a n t o n n e s s i s n o t one o f t h e ways
to prove t h i s t o r t . "
18
2110741
The t r i a l
court overruled the o b j e c t i o n .
I n George H. L a n i e r M e m o r i a l H o s p i t a l v. A n d r e w s , 809 So.
2d 802, 806
( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t
stated:
"Under A l a b a m a l a w , ' " [ a ] p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o
proper
jury
i n s t r u c t i o n s regarding
the
issues
p r e s e n t e d , and an i n c o r r e c t o r m i s l e a d i n g c h a r g e may
be t h e b a s i s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f a new t r i a l . " '
K i n g v. W.A. Brown & S o n s , I n c . , 585 So. 2d 10, 12
(Ala.
1991) ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) .
When an o b j e c t i o n
t o a j u r y c h a r g e has been p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d f o r
r e v i e w on a p p e a l , as t h i s one was, we ' " l o o k t o t h e
e n t i r e t y o f t h e [ j u r y ] c h a r g e t o see i f t h e r e was
r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , " ' and r e v e r s a l i s w a r r a n t e d o n l y
i f t h e e r r o r i s p r e j u d i c i a l . K i n g , 585 So. 2d a t
12."
In t h i s case, the o n l y o b j e c t i o n p r e s e r v e d
is
that the t r i a l
court erroneously
f o r our
review
i n s t r u c t e d the j u r y that
i t c o u l d f i n d M a t t h e w l i a b l e f o r a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y and f a l s e
imprisonment
conduct.
based
on
wanton,
as
opposed
to
intentional,
M a t t h e w , h o w e v e r , has n o t c i t e d any l e g a l a u t h o r i t y
to support h i s p o s i t i o n that those t o r t s r e q u i r e i n t e n t i o n a l
conduct
on t h e p a r t
Ala.
App.
R.
P.
argue t h a t p o i n t
against
of the defendant.
Furthermore,
on a p p e a l ;
Matthew
See R u l e
does
28(a) (10),
not attempt
to
r a t h e r , he d i r e c t s h i s argument
t h e a w a r d o f p u n i t i v e damages, w h i c h argument he d i d
not
r a i s e before
P.
("No
party
may
the t r i a l
assign
court.
See R u l e 51, A l a . R. C i v .
as e r r o r t h e g i v i n g o r f a i l i n g
19
to
2110741
give
a written instruction,
misleading,
unless
incomplete,
or
that party objects
consider
or
the
g i v i n g of
otherwise
an
improper
thereto before
the
erroneous,
oral
charge
jury retires
i t s v e r d i c t , s t a t i n g the matter o b j e c t e d
t o and
to
the
grounds of the o b j e c t i o n . " ) .
The
trial
court
c o r r e c t l y i n s t r u c t e d the
e l e m e n t s o f f a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t and
trial
not
court
further properly
a w a r d any
satisfied
a s s a u l t and
charged the
she
had
proven
those
to
the
battery.
jury that
damages t o E l i z a b e t h u n l e s s
that
j u r y as
i t was
elements.
The
i t could
reasonably
Given
those
i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e j u r y c o u l d n o t have b e e n m i s l e d i n t o f i n d i n g
Matthew
which,
Matthew
liable
he
for
some
complained
has
not
l e s s e r or
at
trial,
preserved
any
j u d g m e n t on
that
argues
tortious
possible.
objection
conduct,
Given
as
that
to
the
f i n d no b a s i s f o r r e v e r s i n g
ground.
False
Matthew
was
other
p u n i t i v e - d a m a g e s i n s t r u c t i o n , we
the
other
that
Imprisonment
the
evidence
a c t i o n f o r f a l s e imprisonment, t h a t the
did
trial
not
sustain
an
court erred i n
d e n y i n g h i s m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w
on
c l a i m , t h a t the
jury
trial
c o u r t e r r e d i n i n s t r u c t i n g the
20
that
as
2110741
to
that
claim,
because the
and
the
appellate
We
court
such
jury
384
So.
based, i n p a r t ,
"must r e v i e w
to
inferences
should
be
on
reversed
the
false-
disagree.
e v i d e n c e most f a v o r a b l e
Peturis,
judgment
j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was
imprisonment c l a i m .
An
that
as
the
2d
1087,
the
tendencies
p r e v a i l i n g party
was
1088
the
free
to
and
draw."
( A l a . 1980).
of
the
indulge
Cooper
v.
Additionally,
" [ t ] h e m o t i o n f o r a [renewed j u d g m e n t as a
m a t t e r o f law]
i s a procedural
device used
to
c h a l l e n g e the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence used to
support the
j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . See
[] R u l e
50(b),
[ A l a . ] R. C i v . P.; L u k e r v. C i t y o f B r a n t l e y ,
520
So. 2d 517
(Ala. 1987).
O r d i n a r i l y , the d e n i a l of
a [renewed m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f law]
i s p r o p e r where t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y has
produced
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to support each element of
[her] c l a i m . "
Cessna A i r c r a f t
Co.
1996)
omitted).
(footnote
The
v.
T r z c i n s k i , 682
So.
e v i d e n c e , when v i e w e d i n a l i g h t
2d
17,
19
(Ala.
most f a v o r a b l e
to
the
j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , shows t h a t , a l t h o u g h E l i z a b e t h
initially
was
not
Adderall,
restrained
by
Matthew,
Matthew f o r c i b l y c o m p e l l e d her
where
he
confined
and
gagged
a f t e r she
to crawl
her.
h i d her
to the
laundry
Matthew
E l i z a b e t h t o h e r bedroom c l o s e t and t h e b a t h r o o m .
Matthew c o e r c e d E l i z a b e t h i n t o r e t u r n i n g
21
then
room,
ordered
Thereafter,
t o t h e m a r i t a l home
2110741
from
the
hospital
based
on
threats
E l i z a b e t h and t h e i r d a u g h t e r .
he
again
did
premises.
She
telephoning
finally
not
allow
regained
violence
toward
Once b a c k a t t h e m a r i t a l home,
Elizabeth
her
of
liberty
freedom
to
o n l y by
leave
the
surreptitiously
h e r m o t h e r , whose p r e s e n c e m o t i v a t e d
Matthew t o
leave.
F a l s e imprisonment
c o n s i s t s of the u n l a w f u l d e t e n t i o n
of
t h e p e r s o n o f a n o t h e r f o r any l e n g t h o f t i m e w h e r e b y he o r she
is
deprived
of h i s or her p e r s o n a l
1975,
§
6-5-170.
which
i t could
The
have
j u r y heard
found
liberty.
See
sufficient
A l a . Code
evidence
t h a t Matthew u n l a w f u l l y
from
detained
E l i z a b e t h f o r v a r i o u s p e r i o d s d u r i n g w h i c h she was d e p r i v e d o f
her personal l i b e r t y .
a
j u d g m e n t as
Therefore,
a matter
of
law
court d i d not e r r i n charging
t h e j u r y v e r d i c t was
as
to that
not e n t i t l e d t o
claim,
on t h a t c l a i m .
i n asserting that this
case
falls
w i t h i n the r u l e
2d 134
See A l f a Mut.
So.
2d 1250,
v. R o u s h, 723
( h o l d i n g t h a t , under
Aspinwall,
22
and
Matthew i s s i m p l y
So.
1998)
trial
compensatory
s e t o u t i n A s p i n w a l l v. Gowens, 405
I n s . Co.
the
t h e j u r y as t o t h a t c l a i m ,
n o t t a i n t e d by any a w a r d o f
o r p u n i t i v e damages b a s e d
incorrect
M a t t h e w was
( A l a . 1981).
1257
(Ala.
"when t h e t r i a l
court
2110741
s u b m i t s t o t h e j u r y a 'good c o u n t ' —
the evidence —
by
and a 'bad c o u n t ' —
the evidence
—
one t h a t i s s u p p o r t e d b y
one t h a t i s n o t s u p p o r t e d
and t h e j u r y r e t u r n s
a general
verdict,
t h i s C o u r t c a n n o t presume t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was r e t u r n e d on t h e
good
count.
In such
v e r d i c t must be
a case,
Matthew f i n a l l y
to grant
impermissibly
that the t r i a l
h i m a new t r i a l
the t r i a l ,
Matthew
trial
court
erred i n
on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e j u r y
Matthew
court preserve
recovered
provided
the
Verdict
complains that the t r i a l
during their deliberations.
it
upon
rendered a quotient v e r d i c t .
Following
court
entered
reversed.").
Quotient
failing
a judgment
to
filed
a motion
requesting
documents w r i t t e n b y t h e j u r o r s
A c t i n g on t h a t m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l
f i v e d i f f e r e n t n o t e s f r o m t h e j u r y room
the p a r t i e s .
After
supplemented h i s p r e v i o u s l y
to include the notes.
reviewing
filed
the
motion
notes,
for a
I n h i s m o t i o n f o r a new
that
new
trial,
M a t t h e w a r g u e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t s h o u l d be s e t a s i d e " b e c a u s e
it
i s the r e s u l t of a
...
quotient
verdict."
3
A
quotient
M a t t h e w b a s e d h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l on s t a t e m e n t s
and a f f i d a v i t s f r o m j u r o r s ; h o w e v e r , M a t t h e w c o n c e d e s on
appeal
that
the j u r o r
statements
and
affidavits
were
3
23
2110741
verdict
award
arises
the
quotient
plaintiff
r e a c h e d by
damages and
Security
43
4
damages
a n t e c e d e n t agreement
equaling
or
The
had
a
t o t a l i n g t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l assessment
of
trial
Harris,
court held
288
Ala.
proven
that
369,
a h e a r i n g on
d e n i e d the motion, e v i d e n t l y
not
to
approximating
F i n . C o r p . v.
t r i a l and
Matthew
r e a c h an
d i v i d i n g t h a t amount by t h e number o f j u r o r s .
Mut.
(1972).
a new
when j u r o r s
the
jury
the
261
So.
2d
motion
for
determining
returned
See
a
that
quotient
verdict.
On
appeal,
Matthew
w h i c h we
refer
assessed
damages
d i v i d i n g by
11.
to
5
as
by
argues
that
one
of
the
jury
" j u r y n o t e 1,"
indicates
totaling
individual
their
J u r y note 1 c o n t a i n s the
that
notes,
the
figures
jury
and
following:
"$115
inadmissible
to prove the e x i s t e n c e of a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t .
See
Rule
606(b),
Ala.
R.
Evid.
(generally
prohibiting
i n t r o d u c t i o n of j u r o r s t a t e m e n t s or a f f i d a v i t s impeaching a
verdict).
S u c h a g r e e m e n t s amount t o i l l e g a l g a m b l i n g v e r d i c t s i n
t h a t t h e y induce j u r o r s to e i t h e r i n f l a t e or d e f l a t e t h e i r
i n d i v i d u a l a s s e s s m e n t s i n o r d e r t o c o n t r o l t h e a v e r a g e t o be
r e t u r n e d as t h e v e r d i c t .
See E w a r t v. Cunningham, 219 A l a .
399, 402, 122 So. 359, 362
(1929).
4
The t r i a l c o u r t e x c u s e d one o f
t r i a l , r e s u l t i n g i n a j u r y o f o n l y 11
5
24
the j u r o r s
members.
during
the
2110741
"125
"150
"25
"30
"30
"75
"110
"175
"175
"30
"175
t o Matthew,
According
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
[Juror
#1]
#2]
#3]
#4]
#5]
#6]
#7]
#8]
#9]
#10]
#11]
the f i g u r e s
100
175
100
100
175
75
100
50
175
50
175"
i n the l e f t - h a n d
column
a v e r a g e 100, s h o r t h a n d f o r $100,000 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y damages,
and
the
figures
shorthand
that
f o r $115,000
jury
adjusted"
i n the
note
1
right-hand
i n punitive
indicates
that
column
average
115.90,
damages.
Matthew
the
"clear[ly]
jury
t h e c o m p e n s a t o r y - d a m a g e s a w a r d o f $100,000
t o $75,000 and, a l s o j u s t as o b v i o u s l y ,
argues
...
downward
adjusted
the p u n i t i v e -
damages a w a r d u p w a r d f r o m $115,000 t o $125,000.
According to
Matthew,
as
$200,000,
a result,
which
the j u r y
approximates
reached
a verdict
the o r i g i n a l
totaling
determination
of
$215,000.
Matthew p o i n t s out t h a t , under Alabama law, a p r e s u m p t i o n
arises
verdict
that
a
jury
used the quotient
process
to obtain
a
"where d a t a f o u n d i n t h e j u r y room, and a p p e a r i n g t o
be t h e work o f t h e j u r y , p r o d u c e s a q u o t i e n t
25
s u b s t a n t i a l l y the
2110741
same as
So.
2d
the
at
verdict
rendered."
Harris,
288
Ala.
a t 372,
261
45-46.
"[A] q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t i s i n v a l i d e v e n i f t h e amount
of the v e r d i c t i s not
exactly
the
same as
the
q u o t i e n t o b t a i n e d by t h e j u r y , b u t i s r e a c h e d by
r o u n d i n g o f f t h e q u o t i e n t t o an e v e n number o r by
m a k i n g some o t h e r s l i g h t a d d i t i o n o r
subtraction."
Harris,
288
Ala.
International
at
Agric.
So.
549
( 1 9 1 3 ) , and
So.
53
(1927)).
372,
261
C o r p . v.
So.
2d
Abercrombie,
at
45
184
Ala.
G e o r g e ' s R e s t . v. Dukes, 216
Matthew contends t h a t
(citing
244,
A l a . 239,
63
113
j u r y note 1 r a i s e s
a
p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d an i n v a l i d q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t
that,
he
says, E l i z a b e t h
p r e s e n t any
in
fact,
their
either
raise
verdict
j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s or o t h e r e v i d e n c e t o prove
the
jury
had
not
agreed beforehand to
rejecting
that
argument,
the
trial
be
not
that,
bound
by
the
or
appeal,
the
court
decided
(1) t h a t M a t t h e w d i d n o t p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o
presumption
(2)
that
this
that
Elizabeth
court
must
the
jury
had
rebutted that
presume
rendered
that
the
c o r r e c t l y d e n i e d t h e n e w - t r i a l m o t i o n , and we may
if
did
quotient.
In
On
f a i l e d t o r e b u t b e c a u s e she
record
shows t h a t
the
trial
26
court
a
quotient
presumption.
trial
court
reverse only
clearly
committed
2110741
l e g a l e r r o r p r e j u d i c i a l t o Matthew's r i g h t s .
Co.
v. D u c k e t t , 70 So.
Assuming t h a t
jurors'
3d 1177,
1181
1 reflects
an
damages
assessments,
t h a t the t r i a l
could
the
concluded
that
s u b s t a n t i a l l y approximate
argues
that
the
jury
a
the
use
court
ultimate
the q u o t i e n t .
reached
Motor
a v e r a g i n g of
or
q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s , i t remains
have
Ford
( A l a . 2011).
j u r y note
individual
See
quotient
for
of
the
reasonably
verdict
Matthew
the
did
not
essentially
compensatory
damages and r e d u c e d i t by $25,000, and t h e n r e a c h e d a q u o t i e n t
for
p u n i t i v e damages and
increased
i t by
$10,000.
He
also
m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h o s e " a d j u s t m e n t s " p r o d u c e d an a g g r e g a t e a w a r d
o f $15,000 l e s s t h a n t h e t o t a l q u o t i e n t i n j u r y n o t e 1.
such l a r g e d e v i a t i o n s , the t r i a l
court
reasonably could
d e c i d e d t h a t the v e r d i c t m a t e r i a l l y v a r i e d from the
A l t h o u g h Alabama cases r e c o g n i z e
still
be
presumed
despite
a
that a quotient
minor
Given
deviation
have
quotient.
verdict
between
q u o t i e n t and t h e v e r d i c t , see H a r r i s , 288 A l a . a t 373, 261
2d a t 46, no A l a b a m a c a s e has e v e r c o n s i d e r e d
large
as
$10,000
adjustments,
or
and
$25,000 t o
i n d i c a t e mere
" r o u n d i n g o f f , " t o an
27
discrepancies
may
the
So.
as
mathematical
agreed-upon
quotient,
2110741
even
in relation
C o n t r a c t i n g Co.
284,
295
to
a
$200,000 v e r d i c t .
v. Goodman, 55 A l a . App.
( C i v . App.
1975)
"so
great
quotient
as
to
process
verdict").
"[A]
verdict w i l l
completely
had
209,
(holding that
$225 b e t w e e n a q u o t i e n t o f $3,275 and
been
negate
g r e a t l y weaken t h e
the
H a r d y , 237
A l a . 603,
314
discrepancy
conclusion
in
arriving
between the
So.
of
2d
only
was
that
the
at
the
quotient
and
i n f e r e n c e t h a t a v e r d i c t has
b e e n a r r i v e d a t by t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s . "
D o t h a n v.
222,
Burgreen
a v e r d i c t o f $3,500
followed
material variance
Compare
6
188
So.
Id.
264
(citing City
(1939)).
of
Hence,
the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o the e x t e n t i t
concluded
that
the
inference
of
a
quotient
verdict
was
I n K i m b a l l v. W a l d e n , 171 W. Va. 579, 583, 301 S.E.2d
210, 215 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f West V i r g i n i a
o b s e r v e d t h a t A l a b a m a i s t h e o n l y j u r i s d i c t i o n where " e v i d e n c e
of papers showing t h a t the j u r y used the q u o t i e n t process at
some p o i n t i n t h e i r d e l i b e r a t i o n s and r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n
t h a t amount g i v e [ s ] r i s e t o a p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e r e was
an
a d v a n c e a g r e e m e n t t o r e t u r n an i m p r o p e r q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t . "
In
other j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h a t evidence " i s not s u f f i c i e n t , of
i t s e l f , t o e s t a b l i s h an a n t e c e d e n t a g r e e m e n t o f t h e j u r o r s t o
be b o u n d by t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c o m p u t a t i o n . "
Id.
That
o b s e r v a t i o n f u r t h e r b o l s t e r s our b e l i e f t h a t we s h o u l d r e q u i r e
s u b s t a n t i a l s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t and t h e v e r d i c t i n
cases i n which only papers recovered
f r o m t h e j u r y room
s u p p o r t t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t was r e a c h e d .
6
28
2110741
weakened b y t h e l a r g e v a r i a t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t s i n j u r y
n o t e 1 a n d t h e damages a c t u a l l y a w a r d e d b y t h e j u r y .
Moreover,
verdict,
i n deciding
the t r i a l
a consideration
trial
court
whether t h e j u r y reached a q u o t i e n t
court d i d not l i m i t
of the p r o b a t i v e v a l u e of j u r y note
also
considered
at least
w h i c h we r e f e r t o as " j u r y n o t e 4."
the
following
i t s inquiry solely to
one o t h e r
1.
jury
That j u r y note
The
note,
contains
column:
"220
"200
"150
"150
"220
"220
"220
"220
"220
"220
"150
"150"
To t h e l e f t
of that
column,
the f o l l o w i n g
appears:
"$220
"$215
"$200"
Assuming
jury
was
t h o s e f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e t h e o v e r a l l d o l l a r amount t h e
considering
awarding,
29
the
quotient
was
either
2110741
$192,727 o r $ 1 9 4 , 5 4 5 , b o t h o f w h i c h d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y f r o m
7
the
figures
from t h a t
i n j u r y note
1, i n c l u d i n g
the t o t a l
c o n t e n t s o f j u r y n o t e 1 and
j u r y n o t e 4, t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e a s o n a b l y c o u l d
have f o u n d
that
j u r y d i d not predetermine to b i n d themselves to render a
v e r d i c t b a s e d on a q u o t i e n t .
contain
trial
Rather, because
s e v e r a l columns w i t h v a r y i n g
court
could
have
concluded
quotient.
After
a l l , the
t h o s e two
notes
numbers and a v e r a g e s , t h e
that
c o n t i n u e d to debate a f t e r o b t a i n i n g
a
$215,000
note.
B a s e d s o l e l y on t h e d i f f e r i n g
the
of
jury
the
jury
necessarily
any f i g u r e i t r e a c h e d v i a
would
not
have
had
two
d i f f e r e n t c o m p u t a t i o n s i f i t had p r e v i o u s l y
a g r e e d t o be b o u n d
by w h a t e v e r
time.
obtaining
q u o t i e n t was
the quotient,
thereafter
arrive
verdict w i l l
sustained,
at
reached the f i r s t
the j u r o r s continue to d e l i b e r a t e
a
different
amount
of
damages,
n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t and w i l l
absent
573 So. 2d 275, 277
some o t h e r i n f i r m i t y . "
( A l a . 1990)
Warner v.
30
the
be
Elliot,
248,
254
(1909)).
"[I]t is
T h e q u o t i e n t depends on w h e t h e r t h e f i r s t f i g u r e u s e d
o r 220.
7
and
( c i t i n g W e s t e r n U n i o n T e l . Co.
v. H i l l , 163 A l a . 18, 37, 50 So.
200
" I f , after
was
2110741
permissible
f o r j u r o r s t o use
the
quotient
process
purpose of o b t a i n i n g a f i g u r e t h a t r e p r e s e n t s
t h e amounts t h e
that
serves
Fleming
as
a
suggestion
d e l i b e r a t i o n , or
or
basis
277-78, 130
awarded
of
and
for
further
Id.
consideration."
v. K n o w l e s , 272 A l a . 271,
the
average
i n d i v i d u a l j u r o r s f e e l s h o u l d be
merely
discussion,
an
for
(citing
So.
2d 326,
332
(1961)).
None o f t h e c a s e s c i t e d by M a t t h e w i n h i s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f
contain
two
differing
computations.
The
existence
of
additional factor
the
competing computations
c o n s t i t u t e s an
trial
c o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d
court reasonably
inference
that
the
jury
impermissibly
themselves to a quotient v e r d i c t .
as n e g a t i n g
agreed
to
bind
When c o u p l e d w i t h t h e l a r g e
v a r i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t s upon w h i c h M a t t h e w r e l i e s
the
damages
awarded,
we
cannot
any
agree
that
the
trial
and
court
exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n to the e x t e n t i t found t h a t E l i z a b e t h
had r e b u t t e d any p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e j u r y r e n d e r e d
a quotient
verdict.
"[T]here
correct,
and
i s a s t r o n g presumption t h a t j u r y v e r d i c t s are
o r d i n a r i l y j u d g m e n t s b a s e d on v e r d i c t s w i l l
not
be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s t h e y a r e shown t o be p l a i n l y e r r o n e o u s o r
31
2110741
manifestly
unjust,"
Warner
v. E l l i o t t ,
573 So. 2d a t 277
( c i t i n g B u s s e y v. J o h n Deere Co., 531 So. 2d 860, 861
1988)),
verdict
motion
and t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t t e n d i n g a j u r y ' s
i s strengthened
for a
reasonably
record
find
(Ala.
that
new
could
trial.
have
the jury
no b a s i s
by t h e t r i a l
Id.
concluded
Because
from
d i d not render
f o r concluding
court's
that
denial
the t r i a l
the evidence
a quotient
of a
court
i n the
verdict,
i t s j u d g m e n t was
we
plainly
e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t s o t h a t i t s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d .
APPLICATION
GRANTED;
OPINION
OF
DECEMBER
WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED.
Thompson, P . J . ,
and P i t t m a n ,
Donaldson, J . , concurs
J . , concur.
specially.
Thomas, J . , d i s s e n t s , w i t h
32
writing.
2 1 , 2012,
2110741
DONALDSON, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y .
I
the
c o n c u r i n t h e main o p i n i o n
trial
regarding
should
court.
t h e argument
have
been
quotient jury
trial
specially
o f Matthew
granted
based
t o address
Morris
on
t h e judgment o f
an
that
two
issues
a new
trial
allegedly
improper
verdict.
The r e c o r d
the
I write
affirming
does n o t r e f l e c t
that
either party
court to i n s t r u c t the jury that
i t could
requested
not return
a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P., n o r
was an o b j e c t i o n
it
could
r a i s e d when t h e j u r y was n o t i n s t r u c t e d
not reach
e x p e c t e d t o know t h a t
they
a
quotient
verdict.
a quotient verdict
a r e so i n s t r u c t e d .
An
example
Jurors
cannot
i s improper
of a
that
be
unless
quotient-verdict
i n s t r u c t i o n i s f o u n d i n F i d e l i t y & D e p o s i t Co. o f M a r y l a n d v.
A d k i n s , 222 A l a . 17, 18, 130 So. 552, 553
(1930)(synopsis):
" ' I c h a r g e you ... t h a t a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t i s a
v e r d i c t a r r i v e d a t by each o f t h e j u r o r s s e t t i n g
down some f i g u r e i n w r i t i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , t h e n t h e
j u r y m a k i n g up t h e t o t a l o f t h e s e t w e l v e f i g u r e s a n d
d i v i d i n g t h e s a i d t o t a l by t w e l v e t o a r r i v e a t t h e
amount o f t h e v e r d i c t , e a c h o f t h e j u r o r s h a v i n g
a g r e e d i n a d v a n c e t o be bound b y t h e r e s u l t . The
C o u r t f u r t h e r c h a r g e s t h e j u r y t h a t t h i s has been
h e l d t o be an i m p r o p e r method o f a r r i v i n g a t a
v e r d i c t and t h e j u r y s h o u l d n o t a r r i v e a t t h e i r
v e r d i c t by so d o i n g . ' "
33
2110741
I would h o l d t h a t a j u r y v e r d i c t i s not s u b j e c t t o challenge
based
on
quotient
the
a
claim
that
v e r d i c t unless
issue
or a proper
the j u r y
improperly
arrived
t h e j u r y was p r o p e r l y
instruction
at a
i n s t r u c t e d on
prohibiting a
quotient
v e r d i c t f r o m b e i n g r e t u r n e d was r e q u e s t e d p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 1 ,
Ala.
R. C i v . P., a n d r e f u s e d o v e r a t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n .
Further, the issue of examining notes, drawings, or other
m a t e r i a l s c r e a t e d by j u r o r s d u r i n g t r i a l
8
should
on t h e s u b j e c t
and t o
I s e e no v a l i d
reason
be a d d r e s s e d t o o b t a i n c l a r i t y
ensure u n i f o r m i t y throughout the s t a t e .
for
a
trial
examination
judge's
notes
to
be
and/or d e l i b e r a t i o n s
subject
to
by t h e p a r t i e s f o l l o w i n g a bench
trial,
w o u l d t r e a t j u r o r - c r e a t e d m a t e r i a l s i n t h e same
manner.
See,
review
or
and I
confidential
T h i s p r i n c i p l e i s e s t a b l i s h e d b y r u l e i n some s t a t e s .
e.g., R u l e
2.430(k),
conclusion
of the t r i a l
the
the
jury,
immediately
court
F l a . R.
and p r o m p t l y
shall
collect
J u d . Admin.
("At t h e
f o l l o w i n g discharge
a l l juror
notes
of
and
d e s t r o y t h e j u r o r n o t e s . " ) ; Rule 47(E), Ohio. C i v .
N o t e - t a k i n g b y j u r o r s d u r i n g t r i a l s h o u l d be e x p r e s s l y
p e r m i t t e d a n d f a c i l i t a t e d as p a r t o f j u r y - s e r v i c e i m p r o v e m e n t
e f f o r t s . See S c o t t D o n a l d s o n , I m p r o v i n g J u r y S e r v i c e , 73 A l a .
Law. 190, 192 (May 2 0 1 2 ) .
8
34
2110741
R.
("The
court s h a l l require
t h a t a l l j u r o r n o t e s be
and
destroyed promptly a f t e r
and
Rule
43A.01,
Tenn.
rendered a v e r d i c t ,
personnel
who
appropriate
the
In
for
destroy
rule
9
c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and
the
absence
principles
1387
(Okla.
set
of
P.
renders a
("After
[ j u r o r ] n o t e s s h a l l be
shall
a
jury
Civ.
R.
the
a
forth
to
be
on
jury
c o l l e c t e d by
promptly.").
It
v.
issue,
916
court
may
be
materials.
I would
Bartlett,
has
addressing
of j u r o r - c r e a t e d
the
Sligar
verdict.");
the
adopted i n Alabama
retention
rule
in
them
collected
adopt
P.2d
the
1383,
1996):
" [ J u r o r ] n o t e s a r e n o t t o be i n c l u d e d
in
t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . S t a t e v. K i p f ,
234
Neb. 227, 450 N.W.2d 397, 415 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . The
n o t e s a r e t o be t r e a t e d as
confidential
b e t w e e n t h e j u r o r and t h e o t h e r j u r o r s .
They must be d e s t r o y e d i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f
t h e C o u r t i m m e d i a t e l y upon a c c e p t a n c e and
f i l i n g of the v e r d i c t . A l t h o u g h f a i l u r e t o
destroy
the
notes
will
not
per
se
c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r , i n the absence
o f some h i g h l y e x t r a o r d i n a r y
circumstances
t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f
t h e j u r o r ' s n o t e s . Nor w i l l t h e y s e r v e t o
impeach
the
jury's
verdict.
Esaw
[v.
F r i e d m a n , 217 Conn. 5 5 3 ] , 586 A.2d
[1164]
a t 1170
[ ( 1 9 9 1 ) ] . To r e v i e w a j u r o r ' s n o t e s
would
violate
the
sanctity
of
the
d e l i b e r a t i v e process. Id. "
S u c h a r u l e c o u l d be made a p a r t o f t h e R u l e s o f J u d i c i a l
Administration
to ensure u n i f o r m i t y
i n c i v i l and
criminal
cases.
9
35
2110741
THOMAS, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g .
I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t
judgment e n t e r e d
Morris.
reject
on t h e j u r y v e r d i c t i n f a v o r
The m a j o r i t y
an
because
inference
of
memoranda
the
determines that
that
varied
the j u r y used
quotients
on
that
room i n o r d e r
may
court
i s permitted
court
a quotient
the
of the
of E l i z a b e t h
the t r i a l
c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e j u r y room.
view that the t r i a l
inferences
from the a f f i r m a n c e
could
verdict
different
I disagree
with the
t o weigh the m u l t i p l e
a r i s e f r o m t h e memoranda
from the j u r y
t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h a t memoranda
r a i s e s the
presumption t h a t the j u r y employed the q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s .
understanding
of the law governing
quotient
i n f e r e n c e , e v e n i f i t i s b u t one o f many p o s s i b l e
that
presumption that
the
jury
used
the
quotient
the j u r y used the q u o t i e n t
My
verdicts differs
f r o m t h a t o f t h e m a j o r i t y b e c a u s e I b e l i e v e t h a t i f any
indicates
jury
fair
inferences,
process,
the
process a r i s e s .
I n o r d e r t o b e t t e r e x p l a i n my b a s i s f o r d i s s e n t i n g , I w i l l s e t
o u t my u n d e r s t a n d i n g
of the a p p l i c a b l e law i n d e t a i l .
A p r e s u m p t i o n o f a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t may a r i s e "where d a t a
f o u n d i n t h e j u r y room, a n d a p p e a r i n g
jury,
produces
a
quotient
t o be t h e work o f t h e
s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same
36
as t h e
2110741
verdict
Ala.
the
rendered."
Security
Mut. F i n . C o r p . v. H a r r i s ,
369, 372, 261 So. 2d 43, 45-46
quotient process
that
represents
jurors
feel
an
should
suggestion or basis
consideration."
1990).
f o r the purpose
average
be
of
of obtaining
a w a r d e d and t h a t
for further
the f a c t
that
A j u r y may
t h e amounts
the
serves
discussion,
Warner v. E l l i o t ,
However,
(1972).
a
presumption
that
quotient process
the j u r y
So.
figure
merely
as a
d e l i b e r a t i o n , or
573 So. 2d 275, 277 ( A l a .
a verdict
i s substantially
impermissibly
i n order to return
288 A l a . a t 373, 261
"use
individual
equal to or approximates the q u o t i e n t reached w i l l
a
288
2d a t 46.
relied
a verdict.
As
result in
See
upon
Harris,
o u r supreme
court
explained i n Harris:
" I n t h i s s t a t e , i t has become e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t
where e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o f s c r a p s o f p a p e r ,
l i s t s o f f i g u r e s and o t h e r memoranda,
indicating
t h a t t h e j u r y u s e d t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s and o b t a i n e d
a q u o t i e n t w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h t h e amount o f t h e
v e r d i c t o r a p p r o x i m a t e s i t , a p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s e s and
a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e i s made t h a t t h e j u r o r s have
improperly used the q u o t i e n t process i n connection
w i t h an a n t e c e d e n t a g r e e m e n t t o be b o u n d b y t h e
amount o f t h e q u o t i e n t a n d t h a t t h e y have t h u s
r e n d e r e d an i n v a l i d q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t . ...
"'... I t i s a s e t t l e d r u l e i n t h i s
s t a t e t h a t when f i g u r e s a r e shown w h i c h
were u s e d by t h e j u r y i n i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s
and f r o m t h e s e f i g u r e s a f a i r i n f e r e n c e may
37
the
2110741
be drawn t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was a q u o t i e n t
v e r d i c t , t h e c o u r t w i l l so h o l d and t h a t
t h e v e r d i c t was t h e r e s u l t o f a p r e v i o u s
Id.
( q u o t i n g F o r t s o n v. H e s t e r ,
649, 651
(1949)).
P u t more
252 A l a . 143, 147, 39 So. 2d
simply,
"when t h e r e c o r d shows s c r a p s and b i t s o f p a p e r
containing
numbers,
lists
of
figures
and
c o m p u t a t i o n s i n d i c a t i n g t h e use o f t h e q u o t i e n t
p r o c e s s t o a r r i v e a t an amount t o be a w a r d e d t o a
p a r t y t o t h e l a w s u i t and t h e amount a w a r d e d c l o s e l y
c o r r e s p o n d s t o t h e amount o b t a i n e d by t h a t p r o c e s s ,
a p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s e s t h a t t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s has
been u s e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h a p r i o r a g r e e m e n t t o
be b o u n d b y t h e r e s u l t s o f s a i d p r o c e s s . "
A l a b a m a Power Co. v. Thomas, 50 A l a . App. 517, 519, 280 So. 2d
778, 780
reached
that
( C i v . 1973) . N o t a b l y , v a r i a n c e s b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t
and t h e v e r d i c t a w a r d e d do n o t n e g a t e t h e p r e s u m p t i o n
the
Harris,
verdict
288
is
A l a . at
agreement
between
returned[]
i s not
an
impermissible
372,
the
261
So.
quotient
required.
...
2d
at
found
[A]
quotient
45
and
quotient
verdict.
("[P]recise
the
verdict
verdict i s
i n v a l i d e v e n i f t h e amount o f t h e v e r d i c t i s n o t e x a c t l y t h e
same as t h e q u o t i e n t o b t a i n e d by t h e j u r y , b u t i s r e a c h e d
rounding
by
o f f t h e q u o t i e n t t o an e v e n number o r by m a k i n g some
other s l i g h t a d d i t i o n or s u b t r a c t i o n . " ) .
38
2110741
The
basis
for
allowing
a
presumption
of
a
quotient
v e r d i c t t o be c r e a t e d i s r o o t e d i n t h e f a c t t h a t , i n A l a b a m a ,
j u r o r a f f i d a v i t s may
may
be
used
Power
Co.
("Neither
to
v.
n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o i m p e a c h a v e r d i c t b u t
uphold
Brooks,
testimony
a
verdict.
See,
So.
1169,
479
2d
generally,
1178
Alabama
(Ala.
1985)
nor a f f i d a v i t s of j u r o r s are a d m i s s i b l e t o
impeach t h e i r v e r d i c t s ; however, such e v i d e n c e i s a d m i s s i b l e
to
sustain
them.").
rationale this
Our
supreme
court
has
explained
its
way:
" C o u r t s have much r e g a r d f o r t h e v e r d i c t s o f
j u r i e s , and a r e i n d i s p o s e d t o p r e s u m p t i o n s t e n d i n g
t o o v e r t u r n them. B u t , i n v i e w o f t h e c a s e w i t h
w h i c h t h e w i n n i n g p a r t y may
produce
explanatory
e v i d e n c e i n c a s e s o f t h i s k i n d , and t h e i n a b i l i t y o f
the l o s i n g p a r t y to o b t a i n other than c i r c u m s t a n t i a l
evidence,
we
think
the
rule
[permitting
the
presumption of a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t ] convenient
of
a p p l i c a t i o n and c o n s e r v a t i v e o f j u s t i c e . "
George's Rest.
v.
(1927).
l o n g been the law of t h i s s t a t e t h a t the
I t has
challenging
v e r d i c t may
Dukes, 216
a v e r d i c t on
Ala.
the
239,
ground
241,
that
113
So.
i t is a
53,
54
party
quotient
n o t use a f f i d a v i t s o f j u r o r s t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t , i n
fact,
the
j u r y used
Light
& Power Co.
1030
(1906),
the
quotient
v. Moore, 148
overruled
on
other
39
process.
A l a . 115,
grounds
Birmingham
130,
by
42
So.
Birmingham
Ry.
1024,
Ry.
2110741
L i g h t & Power Co.
283
(1913).
that
the
v. G o l d s t e i n , 181 A l a . 517,
v e r d i c t was
calculate
the
inference
of
261
651.
So.
The
61 So.
281,
Thus, t h e c h a l l e n g e r i s e n t i t l e d t o a p r e s u m p t i o n
a r r i v e d at
when t h e n o t e s o f t h e
373,
532,
use
2d a t 46;
a quotient
j u r y c o n t a i n i n g the
verdict
the
through
amount
of
provide
Fortson,
p r e s u m p t i o n may
252
t h e n be
f i g u r e s i t used
a
such process.
process
basis
for
H a r r i s , 288
A l a . a t 147,
a
fair
Ala.
39 So.
to
2d
r e b u t t e d by a f f i d a v i t s
at
at
from
the j u r o r s r e f u t i n g the i n f e r e n c e t h a t a q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s
was
used.
So.
264,
See
268
motion
C i t y o f D o t h a n v. H a r d y , 237 A l a . 603,
608,
(1939)
denial
f o r new
( a f f i r m i n g the
trial
when t h e
included
t h e s e f i g u r e s were made and
verdict
affidavits
abandoned the
use
L i g h t & Power
Co.
37 So.
925,
925
agreement
(1904) ( " I t
was
t o p r o v e by t h e j u r o r s t h e m s e l v e s
s u p p o r t o f t h e i r v e r d i c t t h u s s o u g h t t o be
previous
a
j u r o r s had
162,
competent f o r the p l a i n t i f f
without
of
B i r m i n g h a m Ry.,
of the q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s ) ;
in
court's
evidence
from j u r o r s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the
v. C l e m o n s , 142 A l a . 160,
trial
188
impugned,
t h a t t h i s p r o c e s s was
that
").
40
the
result
that
resorted to
should
be
the
2110741
I n s u p p o r t o f h i s m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l ,
presented
room.
several pieces
recovered
from
the jury
Upon one p i e c e o f p a p e r , w r i t t e n i n c o l u m n s , a p p e a r t h e
names o f t h e 11 j u r o r s
to
o f paper
Matthew M o r r i s
a n d v a r i o u s numbers r a n g i n g
1 0
175; a t t h e t o p o f t h a t p i e c e
("jury note 1").
of paper
f r o m 25
i s w r i t t e n $115
On a s e c o n d p i e c e o f p a p e r i s w r i t t e n "100
p u n i t i v e s , " w h i c h i s c r o s s e d o u t , f o l l o w e d on s e p a r a t e
by "5,000 p u n i t i v e F I , " "Comp A," "100,"
("jury note 2").
"75/125.00"
note
3").
On a f o u r t h p i e c e
paper
appears
"$220,"
"$195," a n d "$20 0.00."
On t h a t same p i e c e
"$215.00," w h i c h was c r o s s e d o u t ,
When t h e numbers i n t h e column on j u r y
note 4 a r e added t o g e t h e r
$194.54.
of paper
o f 11 numbers c o n t a i n i n g f o u r "150" e n t r i e s
and s e v e n "220" e n t r i e s ( " j u r y n o t e 4 " ) .
of
"$220"
The t h i r d p i e c e o f p a p e r c o n t a i n s t h e f i g u r e
("jury
a p p e a r s a column
"115K," a n d
lines
and d i v i d e d by 11, t h e q u o t i e n t i s
A f i f t h p i e c e o f p a p e r c o n t a i n s a column
containing
t h e numbers "$25,000," "$25,000," "$29,000," w h i c h i s c r o s s e d
out,
"$75,000,"
which
i s also
crossed
out,
a n d "$100,000"
("jury note 5 " ) ; i n a second column, j u r y note 5 c o n t a i n s t h e
words
"loss
of time,"
"injury,"
"restrained of
freedom,"
T h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t 1 o f t h e j u r o r s was e x c u s e d
and t h a t o n l y 11 j u r o r s d e l i b e r a t e d .
10
41
2110741
"assault,"
"medical
bills,"
" t i m e l o s s o f work."
"fleed
[ s i c ] from
and
t o be t o t a l e d
below
t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d f i g u r e s on j u r y n o t e 5; t h e o r i g i n a l
total
was
The amounts a p p e a r
scene,"
"$150,000" w i t h
original total.
they appear
t h e number
over
the
O t h e r c o m p u t a t i o n s a p p e a r on j u r y n o t e 5, b u t
irrelevant.
A l t h o u g h Matthew
described
"$175,000" w r i t t e n
above,
I
f o c u s e s on t h e f i g u r e s
find
the
figures
on
on j u r y
jury
note
note
4,
1
and
s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e q u o t i e n t r e a c h e d b y t o t a l i n g t h o s e numbers,
more c o m p e l l i n g .
I agree
with
Matthew
that
the f i g u r e s
on
j u r y n o t e 4 a r e s h o r t h a n d f o r $150,000 and $220,000; t h e r e i s
s i m p l y no o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e numbers $150 and $220 when
t h e v e r d i c t u l t i m a t e l y r e n d e r e d was $200,000.
the
sums on
jury
note
4 i s $194.54;
s h o r t h a n d f o r $194,540.
thus, the q u o t i e n t i s
The j u r y a w a r d e d E l i z a b e t h
I b e l i e v e t h a t t o determine whether
both
parties
presumption
process
admit
that
were
The q u o t i e n t o f
t h e work
the v e r d i c t
was
of
a
$200,000.
the j u r y notes, which
the
result
jury,
raise
the
of the q u o t i e n t
a c o u r t must s i m p l y a s k i f t h e n o t e s
raise,
as
one
p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e , t h e c o n c e r n t h a t t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s was
used.
N o t a b l y , t h e t e r m i n o l o g y u s e d b y o u r supreme c o u r t i n
42
2110741
Fortson,
252
A l a . a t 147,
39
So.
2d a t 651,
does n o t
require
t h a t t h e j u r y n o t e s o r o t h e r memoranda p r o v e o r e s t a b l i s h t h e
use
of
the
memoranda
quotient
must
process.
merely
quotient process
was
raise
u s e d by
The
"a
jury
fair
notes
or
inference"
other
that
the
the j u r y .
"An
inference i s a deduction
of f a c t
that
r e a s o n a b l y may be drawn f r o m a n o t h e r f a c t o r g r o u p
o f f a c t s . I t i s i n t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f i n d u c t i v e , as
opposed to d e d u c t i v e ,
reasoning
that
the
same
p r e m i s e , o r s e t o f p r e m i s e s , w i l l g i v e r i s e t o more
t h a n one
i n f e r e n c e , each of which i s l o g i c a l l y
compatible w i t h the i n i t i a l premise or
premises.
M e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e same f a c t u a l p r e m i s e w i l l s u p p o r t
more t h a n one i n f e r e n c e does n o t o f i t s e l f
render
the p r o f f e r e d evidence c o n j e c t u r a l or s p e c u l a t i v e .
I n d e e d , i n f e r e n c e s may
be o f g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r
p e r s u a s i o n e v e n t h o u g h , as a m a t t e r o f s t r i c t l o g i c ,
they
may
a l l follow rationally
from the
same
premise."
R o b e r t s v. C a r r o l l ,
B a s e d on
the
377
So.
2d
944,
947
l a n g u a g e e m p l o y e d by
( A l a . 1979).
our
supreme c o u r t
in
F o r s t o n , t h e p a r t y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v e r d i c t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t
it
i s a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t must p r e s e n t
t h a t would support
quotient process.
a
The
fair
inference
j u r y n o t e s o r memoranda
that
the
j u r y used
presumption then a r i s e s t h a t the
a g r e e d i n a d v a n c e t o be b o u n d by
a quotient process,
and
the
jury
the
t r i a l c o u r t must t h e n "so h o l d " t h a t t h e v e r d i c t i s a q u o t i e n t
v e r d i c t , s u b j e c t t o r e b u t t a l by e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d
43
in
support
2110741
of t h e v e r d i c t .
Ala.
See Warner,
573 So. 2d a t 277; H a r r i s ,
a t 373, 261 So. 2d a t 46.
provided
that
they
would
288
The j u r y n o t e s o r memoranda,
support
a fair
inference
that the
q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s was u s e d , t h e m s e l v e s t r i g g e r t h e p r e s u m p t i o n .
Warner,
stated
573 So. 2d a t 277.
that
I n Warner,
o u r supreme
"the presumption
of a quotient
[the c h a l l e n g e r
of the verdict]
c r e a t e d when
verdict
court
... was
introduced the
s c r a p s o f p a p e r f r o m t h e j u r y room[, w h i c h c o n t a i n e d a l i s t o f
figures
added
approximately
evidence."
together
the
Id.
same
and
as
divided
the
Similarly,
and
verdict
i n Harris,
arose
after
"incriminating
substantially
"adequately
Harris,
our
the challenger
papers"
into
o u r supreme
court
to the v e r d i c t
a quotient
and a f t e r
court
has
explained
corresponding
those
papers
were
t h e use
that
As n o t e d
the reason
above,
f o r the
i n the f a c t that the challenger of the
has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
of
presented
i d e n t i f i e d " as h a v i n g been c r e a t e d b y t h e j u r o r s .
presumption i s rooted
evidence
was a q u o t i e n t
of the v e r d i c t
288 A l a . a t 373, 261 So. 2d a t 46.
supreme
verdict
containing
quotient
awarded,]
stated that the presumption that the v e r d i c t
verdict
a
of
to present
the
44
quotient
only
circumstantial
process
while
the
2110741
p r o p o n e n t o f t h e v e r d i c t may p r e s e n t e x p l a n a t o r y e v i d e n c e w i t h
r e l a t i v e ease.
288
Dukes, 216 A l a . a t 241, 113 So. a t 54; H a r r i s ,
A l a . a t 373, 261 So. 2d a t 47.
challenger
Thus, t h e b u r d e n on t h e
of the v e r d i c t i s not t o prove
by a
particular
quantum o f e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e j u r y n o t e s o r memoranda were u s e d
by t h e j u r y i n e x e c u t i n g t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s .
1 1
Instead, a l l
t h a t t h e j u r y n o t e s o r memoranda must do i s p r o v i d e
for
a fair
inference
that
they
were
so u s e d .
a basis
See, e.g.,
The
term " f a i r
i n f e r e n c e " i s u s e d more o f t e n i n
Alabama's c r i m i n a l j u r i s p r u d e n c e
i n cases i n which the
appellate court i s reviewing a t r i a l court's decision to
o v e r r u l e "a m o t i o n t o e x c l u d e t h e s t a t e ' s e v i d e n c e " a n d t o
e n t e r a judgment o f a c q u i t t a l .
See Thomas v . S t a t e , 363 So.
2d 1020, 1022 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978) . The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w
o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n on s u c h a m o t i o n i s " w h e t h e r
there e x i s t s l e g a l evidence before the j u r y , a t the time the
m o t i o n was made, f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d b y f a i r i n f e r e n c e
f i n d the defendant g u i l t y . "
Thomas, 363 So. 2d a t 1022. The
Thomas c o u r t f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e j u r y a l o n e h a s t h e
power t o d e t e r m i n e t h e " p r o b a t i v e f o r c e and w e i g h t o f t h e
evidence"
a n d t h a t an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may o n l y d e t e r m i n e
whether the evidence presented c o u l d support a f a i r i n f e r e n c e
t h a t would support a g u i l t y v e r d i c t .
Id.
That i s , t h e
a p p e l l a t e c o u r t looks t o determine whether a j u r y c o u l d f a i r l y
i n f e r t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was g u i l t y b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t
was t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e m o t i o n t o e x c l u d e a n d n o t w h e t h e r t h e
t r i a l c o u r t o r t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w o u l d so i n f e r .
I d . This
supports the conclusion that the requirement that the j u r y
n o t e s o r memoranda c r e a t e a f a i r i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e q u o t i e n t
p r o c e s s was u s e d r e q u i r e s o n l y t h a t s u c h an i n f e r e n c e c o u l d be
drawn, as one o f s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s , b e f o r e t h e
presumption that the v e r d i c t i s a quotient v e r d i c t i s r a i s e d .
11
45
2110741
Fleming
v.
Knowles,
272
Ala.
271,
278,
130
So.
2d
326,
332
(1961) ( s t a t i n g o f a j u r y n o t e c o n t a i n i n g a l i s t o f 12 f i g u r e s
and a q u o t i e n t a p p r o x i m a t i n g
the v e r d i c t : " [ d ] a t a of t h i s k i n d
h e r e shown have b e e n h e l d p r i m a f a c i e
t h e v e r d i c t as a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t " ) ;
188
So.
Of
a t 268
course,
memoranda
give
p r o c e s s was
review,
sufficient
H a r d y , 237
to
impeach
A l a . at
608,
(same).
in
determining
rise
to
a
whether
fair
the
inference
jury
that
notes
the
or
quotient
u s e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t , and t h i s c o u r t on a p p e l l a t e
must c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e q u o t i e n t on t h e
j u r y notes
o r memoranda " c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h " o r " a p p r o x i m a t e s " t h e v e r d i c t .
Alabama
law
provides
that
a
slight
d i f f e r e n c e between
q u o t i e n t and t h e j u r y ' s a w a r d w i l l n o t a f f e c t t h e
that
the
Harris,
v e r d i c t was
our
decided
by
the
quotient
supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t a $42
t h e q u o t i e n t and
t h e v e r d i c t a w a r d e d was
the
presumption
process.
In
d i f f e r e n c e between
not
significant
and
c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d as t h e j u r y ' s d e c i s i o n " m e r e l y [ t o ] r o u n d [ ]
off
[the
award] t o
373,
261
So.
that
a
the
2d a t 46.
larger
next hundred."
Our
discrepancy
H a r r i s , 288
supreme c o u r t has
may
still
give
at
also indicated
rise
p r e s u m p t i o n , i n d i c a t i n g i n H a r d y , 237 A l a . a t 608,
46
Ala.
188
to
So.
the
at
2110741
268, t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t a r o s e when t h e
q u o t i e n t was $6,700 a n d t h e j u r y a w a r d e d $6,000.
Crawford
M o t o r Co. v. S m i t h ,
484,
(1970) ( o p i n i o n e x t e n d e d
court
494
held
quotient
that
a
fair
v e r d i c t arose
j u r y had added t o g e t h e r
In Maring-
285 A l a . 477, 488, 233 So. 2d
on r e h e a r i n g ) ,
inference
where
that
j u r y notes
o u r supreme
the v e r d i c t
was
indicated that
a
the
12 f i g u r e s a n d h a d d i v i d e d t h e sum by
12 t o r e a c h $16,125 and t h e v e r d i c t a w a r d e d was $15,000.
More
r e c e n t l y , t h e supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f
a quotient
from
v e r d i c t was
the j u r y
room
r a i s e d when t h e j u r y n o t e s
yielded
a quotient
of
v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d by t h e j u r y was $30,000.
at
277.
However, t h i s
between the q u o t i e n t
court
has h e l d
$34,670
recovered
and t h e
W a r n e r , 573 So. 2d
that
a $225
variance
-- $3,275 -- a n d t h e v e r d i c t — $ 3 , 5 0 0
was "much more t h a n a mere r o u n d i n g o f f o r a s l i g h t
-¬
addition
o r s u b t r a c t i o n t o t h e q u o t i e n t amount" a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e
difference,
which
was more t h a n t h e $42 amount p e r m i t t e d i n
H a r r i s , n e g a t e d any c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was a q u o t i e n t
verdict.
209,
222,
Burgreen
314
So.
Contracting
2d
284,
Co. v. Goodman, 55 A l a . App.
296
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of precedent other
47
( C i v . 1975).
Based
on
than H a r r i s , I conclude t h a t
2110741
Goodman does
not
comport
court regarding quotient
Elizabeth
the
argues
with
the
h o l d i n g s of
our
supreme
verdicts.
i n her
application
for rehearing
that
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e a c t u a l q u o t i e n t o f $194,540 and t h e
jury's
verdict
of
$200,000 i s t o o l a r g e
t o be
considered a
s l i g h t d e v i a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e
j u r y used the q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s d i d not a r i s e .
with
Elizabeth
that
our
focus
should
be
I cannot
limited
agree
to
the
n u m e r i c a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t and t h e v e r d i c t .
our
supreme c o u r t
stated
i n 1913,
"[t]he
evil
effects
As
of a
q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t c a n n o t be c u r e d by a g r e e i n g t h e r e a f t e r t o a
slightly different verdict,
made
i n advance
i f i t appears t h a t the agreement
entered into
or
induced
the
result
I n t e r n a t i o n a l A g r i c . C o r p . v. A b e r c r o m b i e , 184 A l a . 244,
63 So. 549,
553
"
259,
(1913).
The A b e r c r o m b i e c o u r t went on t o d i s c u s s q u o t i e n t - v e r d i c t
c a s e s f r o m o t h e r s t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g one f r o m T e x a s , f r o m w h i c h
the
court quoted the f o l l o w i n g
test:
"'"The t e s t i n s u c h c a s e s i s : D i d t h e j u r y a g r e e t o
be
bound
beforehand
by
the
result
of
such
p r o c e e d i n g s ? I f s o , t h e v e r d i c t w i l l be s e t a s i d e .
B u t i f t h e r e s u l t was r e a c h e d , and no a g r e e m e n t h a d
b e f o r e h a n d t o a b i d e by i t , and i t was a f t e r w a r d s
48
2110741
agreed
upon
sustained."'"
as
their
verdict,
i t
will
be
A b e r c r o m b i e , 184 A l a . a t 259-60, 63 So. a t 554 ( q u o t i n g
M i d l a n d R.R. v. A t h e r t o n , 123 S.W.
1909),
Texas
224
quoting i n turn
v. H a w k i n s ,
Missouri,
Texas
704, 704 (Tex. C i v . App.
Kansas
& Texas
Ry. Co. o f
50 Tex. C i v . App. 128, 133, 109 S.W. 2 2 1 ,
(1908)).
The
which
Abercrombie
the jurors,
court
after
also
relied
on a K a n s a s
determining the quotient,
case i n
w h i c h was
" n e a r l y $300," d e c i d e d t o make t h e v e r d i c t an even amount a n d
set
at
t h e v e r d i c t a t $300.
554
(1901)).
(citing
Ottawa
A b e r c r o m b i e , 184 A l a . a t 2 6 1 , 63 So.
v. G i l l i l a n d ,
The A b e r c r o m b i e
court
63 K a n . 165, 65 P. 252
then
quoted
the following
p o r t i o n from t h e o p i n i o n i n Ottawa:
"'After
the
amount
was
found
by
marking,
aggregating,
and
dividing
there
was
no
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n . The a d d i t i o n t o t h a t amount was n o t
made a f t e r a f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d t h e d e c i s i o n
of t h e c a u s e upon i t s m e r i t s , b u t was f o r t h e one
p u r p o s e o f m a k i n g an e v e n amount. The l a w demands o f
e a c h j u r o r an h o n e s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s o f
the p a r t i e s l i t i g a n t and t h e e x e r c i s e o f h i s b e s t
judgment, g u i d e d by t h e law and t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e
c a s e . A v e r d i c t r e a c h e d i n any o t h e r way s h o u l d be
set a s i d e . ' "
Abercrombie,
184 A l a . a t 2 6 1 , 63 So. a t 554 ( q u o t i n g
63 K a n . a t 166-67, 65 P. a t 2 5 3 ) .
49
Ottawa,
2110741
The
present
jurors
used
Clearly,
be
case
shorthand
the
a
presumption that
for
that
numbers
When one
substantial
our
supreme
the
inference"
by
147,
So.
and
39
deviation
v e r d i c t was
between the
has
in
such
use
the
that
numbers a c t u a l l y
q u o t i e n t and
of
that
the
from
conclude
difference
s h o u l d be
the
determined
Thus, I b e l i e v e
that
figures
the
on
focus
jury
should
b e t w e e n t h e q u o t i e n t and
c e n t e r e d on w h e t h e r t h e
inference
t h a t the
the
note
not
t h a t the
be
on
is
However,
that
a
figures
used
fair
"a
amount
In
say
to
rise
4.
be
stand
verdict
Fortson,
of
252
trial
at
court,
inference"
doing
the
their
Ala.
so,
I
numerical
the v e r d i c t but,
instead,
evidence gives r i s e to
j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was
50
the
to
presumption
give
a quotient process.
2d a t 651.
a
drawn when t h e
computations
jury
not
a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t would
announced
its
the
verdict.
t h i s c o u r t on a p p e a l , must d e t e r m i n e what " f a i r
arises
fair
their
i n a n u m e r i c a l or monetary sense.
that
verdict
that
$200,000, i t i s much more d i f f i c u l t
court
jury
fact
f r o m $194.54 t o $200.00 w o u l d
q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t e x i s t s i s t o be
by
the
figure
c o n s i d e r s t h a t the
difference
not
by
to
substantial
the
$194,540 and
the
complicated
" r o u n d i n g up"
considered
overcome.
is
i n d u c e d by
the
the
use
2110741
of the q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s .
So.
a t 554
("The
e v i l e f f e c t s of a q u o t i e n t
c u r e d by a g r e e i n g
if
See A b e r c r o m b i e , 184 A l a . a t 259,
v e r d i c t cannot
or i n d u c e d the r e s u l t . " ) ;
Co.,
79 Mont. 144,
of a " w e l l - d e f i n e d
how
much
invalid"
be
t h e r e a f t e r to a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t v e r d i c t ,
i t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t made i n a d v a n c e e n t e r e d
Ry.
63
see
255
a l s o B e n j a m i n v. H e l e n a L i g h t &
P.
20,
24
(1927)
( n o t i n g the
r u l e a b o u t what d i s c r e p a n c y
the
discrepancy
and
concluding
into
may
be
that
and
the
"[m]uch
is slight
verdict
seems t o
b a s i c f a c t s t h a t m a t h e m a t i c a l c a l c u l a t i o n was
lack
nor
still
rest
be
on
the
resorted to
and
l e d up t o t h e f i x i n g o f t h e amount o f t h e v e r d i c t , e v e n t h o u g h
n o t t h e same as t h e q u o t i e n t " ) .
Otherwise, I b e l i e v e that
we
r u n t h e r i s k o f a l l o w i n g a d e c i s i o n by t h e j u r y t o i n c r e a s e
or
d e c r e a s e t h e q u o t i e n t by more t h a n a m i n i m a l sum
to "cure
the
e v i l e f f e c t s o f a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t , " w h i c h s u c h d e c i s i o n s have
l o n g been h e l d u n a b l e t o c u r e .
App.
184
App.
also
417,
Ala.
400,
418,
85
a t 259,
400,
comports
presumption
to
So.
63
135
581,
So.
So.
582
v.
( 1 9 2 0 ) ; see
a t 554;
646,
Ledbetter
and
647
the
reason
arise
i n the
first
51
S t o n e v.
State,
Such a
behind
place
17
Ala.
a l s o Abercrombie,
(1931).
with
State,
—
24
conclusion
permitting
the
Ala.
the
comparative
2110741
ease
with
evidence
which
of the
the
proponent
jurors'
of
the
v e r d i c t may
d e l i b e r a t i o n process
produce
to support
the
verdict.
The
numbers on
t h a t the
number
j u r y note
j u r y used the
"$195," w h i c h
4 lead
to
quotient process
i s merely
$.46
a r r i v e d a t by t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s .
the
to
$200, an e v e n number.
then concluded
into
"75"
inference
t o come up
more
than
with
the
the
$194.54
On t h e same n o t e , w r i t t e n
i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o "$195," i s "$200.00."
can be drawn t h a t t h e j u r y c o n c l u d e d
fair
A fair
inference
t h a t i t should round
$195
Jury note 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t the
jury
that i t should
i n compensatory
d i v i d e the
damages and
$200 damages a w a r d
"125.00"
in punitive
damages.
I
cannot
agree
that
the
a c t u a l a w a r d o f $200,000 and
$5,460
d i f f e r e n c e between
t h e q u o t i e n t o f $194,540 n e g a t e s
the i n f e r e n c e t h a t the j u r y used the q u o t i e n t process
i t s v e r d i c t b a s e d on i t s use o f t h e s h o r t h a n d
$200.
Although
discrepancy
that
difference
b e t w e e n a q u o t i e n t and
c a s e l a w , I n o t e t h a t i n Warner t h e
the
v e r d i c t and
the
quotient
the
is
larger
to
reach
numbers $195
than
any
and
other
a v e r d i c t mentioned i n our
$4,670 d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
i n v o l v e d a $30,000 v e r d i c t ,
52
as
2110741
opposed
to
difference
recognized
Warner.
a
$200,000
verdict.
i n the present
case
Percentage-wise,
i s smaller
that
the
t h e amount
t o t r i g g e r the presumption of a quotient v e r d i c t i n
Thus,
I cannot
agree
that
the inference
r a i s e d by
j u r y n o t e 4 was n e g a t e d b y t h e a p p a r e n t d e c i s i o n t o i n c r e a s e
t h e v e r d i c t t o a r o u n d number more e a s i l y c a p a b l e o f d i v i s i o n ,
because E l i z a b e t h p r o v i d e d
no p r o o f
t h a t s u c h a d j u s t m e n t was
made " ' a f t e r a f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e
c a u s e upon i t s m e r i t s . ' "
A b e r c r o m b i e , 184 A l a . a t 261,
63 So.
a t 554 ( q u o t i n g O t t a w a , 63 K a n . a t 166-67, 65 P. a t 2 5 3 ) ; s e e
also
Warner ,
quotient,
573 So. 2d a t 277
the jurors
continue
("If,
after
obtaining the
t o d e l i b e r a t e and t h e r e a f t e r
a r r i v e a t a d i f f e r e n t amount o f damages, t h e v e r d i c t w i l l n o t
be c o n s i d e r e d
some o t h e r
At
that
a q u o t i e n t v e r d i c t a n d w i l l be s u s t a i n e d ,
infirmity.").
oral
argument,
a suggestion
t h e j u r y was p o l l e d a n d e a c h
v e r d i c t was h i s o r h e r own s h o u l d
the
v e r d i c t was a q u o t i e n t
was made t h a t
the fact
juror indicated that the
negate the i n f e r e n c e
verdict.
cured
by
the jury
subsequently
53
that
Our supreme c o u r t h a s
s t a t e d t h a t a v e r d i c t i n d u c e d by t h e q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s
"be
absent
adopting
cannot
i t , or
i t s
2110741
e q u i v a l e n t , as t h e i r v e r d i c t , i f t h e a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d i n t o o r
c o n t r o l l e d the subsequent
Abercrombie,
184
A l a . at
adoption
259,
63
of the v e r d i c t r e t u r n e d . "
So.
at
553.
Thus,
the
p o l l i n g of the j u r o r s d i d not serve to negate the presumption
r a i s e d by j u r y n o t e
4.
B a s e d on t h e a b o v e - e x a m i n e d a u t h o r i t i e s ,
Matthew p r o d u c e d
s u f f i c i e n t evidence from which arose a
i n f e r e n c e t h a t a q u o t i e n t p r o c e s s was
jury's
verdict
of
$200,000
Thus,
I conclude
presumption
quotient
As
that
closely
the
noted
above,
f r o m one
277
the
that
and
was
an
is
on j u r y n o t e
i s , entitled
of
was
to
the
impermissible
permitted
a quotient verdict.
tended
testimony
presumption
Our
and
verdict
Elizabeth
( a f f i r m i n g the
affidavits
that
jury's
was,
contained
o r more j u r o r s t o r e b u t
t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was
at
he
approximates
The
verdict.
affidavits
2d
that
fair
u s e d by t h e j u r y .
s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r to the q u o t i e n t
4.
I conclude that
court's
t o impeach
the
a quotient
supreme c o u r t has
explained:
54
was
presumption
exclusion
of
verdict while
j u r y foreman,
verdict,
offer
See W a r n e r , 573
trial
of the
the
to
which
juror
noting
rebutted
properly
So.
the
admitted).
2110741
" E v i d e n c e o f j u r o r s on a m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l
i s a d m i s s i b l e t o s u s t a i n t h e i r v e r d i c t . I t may be
shown t h e memoranda, i f made b y t h e j u r y , was a mere
t e n t a t i v e e x p r e s s i o n of the j u r o r s ' views f o r the
p u r p o s e o f f u r t h e r d e l i b e r a t i o n s ; t h a t no p r i o r
agreement, e x p r e s s o r i m p l i e d , t o a b i d e t h e r e s u l t ,
was e n t e r e d i n t o ; t h a t s u c h s u g g e s t i o n , i f made, was
abandoned, o r o t h e r f a c t s t o show t h e v e r d i c t was
the e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e f a i r j u d g m e n t o f t h e s e v e r a l
jurors."
Dukes, 216 A l a . a t 240, 113 So. a t 54.
However, E l i z a b e t h d i d
n o t p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n a r i s i n g f r o m
j u r y n o t e 4.
See H a r r i s ,
("The a p p e l l e e p r o d u c e d
that
the jurors
288 A l a . a t 373, 261 So. 2d a t 46
no t e s t i m o n y o r a f f i d a v i t s
d i d n o t agree
i n advance
t o prove
t o abide by the
r e s u l t o f t h e i r c o m p u t a t i o n s , o r t h a t t h e q u o t i e n t was o n l y a
basis
the
f o r further deliberations,
verdict
o r any o t h e r f a c t s
was an e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e f a i r
several jurors.");
judgment
t o show
of the
Dukes, 216 A l a . a t 2 4 1 , 113 So. a t 54 ("In
t h i s c a s e no e v i d e n c e f r o m j u r o r s o r o t h e r s o u r c e was o f f e r e d
to
q u e s t i o n the connection of these papers w i t h the v e r d i c t ,
or
to otherwise explain
evidence,
the t r i a l
presumption
verdict.
that
their
court
implication.").
h a d no b a s i s
the v e r d i c t
Without
such
f o r r e j e c t i n g the
was an i m p e r m i s s i b l e
quotient
A c c o r d i n g l y , I d i s s e n t from t h e m a j o r i t y ' s
opinion.
55
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
