Main Menu

Trescot v. Foy

HEALTH LAW

Mary Beth Barksdale

In Trescot v. Foy, 492 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that in reviewing a petition for new trial in a medical malpractice case, the trial court erred in admitting the affidavits of jurors as evidence supporting the petition, reversing the trial court’s grant of a mistrial for lack of evidence supporting the motion. (Id. at 1015). Foy brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Trescot after Dr. Trescot prescribed a medication which allegedly caused Foy to suffer “uncontrolled body movements” diagnosed as “medication-induced dyskinesia.” (Id.). After the trial, the jury addressed two questions, each requiring ten out of twelve jurors to agree on an answer. (Id.). When polled at the request of Foy, all twelve jurors confirmed that they agreed with the verdict, but after the trial, three jurors signed affidavits that they disagreed with the verdict on one of the two questions. (Id. at 1015–16). Based on these affidavits, Foy moved for a mistrial, arguing that the jury has not reached a verdict on one of two necessary questions, and Dr. Trescot opposed the motion on the grounds that the affidavits were inadmissible and that Foy waived the issue by failing to object to the manner of polling at the end of the trial. (Id. at 1016). The trial court admitted the affidavits at hearing and granted a mistrial. (Id.). The supreme court reasoned that juror affidavits could not be used to impeach a verdict outside of a few narrow exceptions, and those exceptions did not include inquiries into the final jury vote. (Id. at 1017 (citing Alaska Evid. R. 606(b))). Because the affidavits did “not contain extraneous prejudicial information or outside influences” that impacted the jury, and the jury was clearly instructed on the vote needed to render a verdict, the court declined to expand the exceptions to the rule against juror testimony. (Id. at 1018). The supreme court therefore held that in reviewing a petition for new trial in a medical malpractice case, the trial court erred in admitting the affidavits of jurors as evidence supporting the petition, reversing the trial court’s grant of a mistrial for lack of evidence supporting the motion. (Id. at 1015).

Trescot v. Foy

HEALTH LAW

Mary Beth Barksdale

In Trescot v. Foy, 492 P.3d 1014 (Alaska 2021), the supreme court held that in reviewing a petition for new trial in a medical malpractice case, the trial court erred in admitting the affidavits of jurors as evidence supporting the petition, reversing the trial court’s grant of a mistrial for lack of evidence supporting the motion. (Id. at 1015). Foy brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Trescot after Dr. Trescot prescribed a medication which allegedly caused Foy to suffer “uncontrolled body movements” diagnosed as “medication-induced dyskinesia.” (Id.). After the trial, the jury addressed two questions, each requiring ten out of twelve jurors to agree on an answer. (Id.). When polled at the request of Foy, all twelve jurors confirmed that they agreed with the verdict, but after the trial, three jurors signed affidavits that they disagreed with the verdict on one of the two questions. (Id. at 1015–16). Based on these affidavits, Foy moved for a mistrial, arguing that the jury has not reached a verdict on one of two necessary questions, and Dr. Trescot opposed the motion on the grounds that the affidavits were inadmissible and that Foy waived the issue by failing to object to the manner of polling at the end of the trial. (Id. at 1016). The trial court admitted the affidavits at hearing and granted a mistrial. (Id.). The supreme court reasoned that juror affidavits could not be used to impeach a verdict outside of a few narrow exceptions, and those exceptions did not include inquiries into the final jury vote. (Id. at 1017 (citing Alaska Evid. R. 606(b))). Because the affidavits did “not contain extraneous prejudicial information or outside influences” that impacted the jury, and the jury was clearly instructed on the vote needed to render a verdict, the court declined to expand the exceptions to the rule against juror testimony. (Id. at 1018). The supreme court therefore held that in reviewing a petition for new trial in a medical malpractice case, the trial court erred in admitting the affidavits of jurors as evidence supporting the petition, reversing the trial court’s grant of a mistrial for lack of evidence supporting the motion. (Id. at 1015).