805.08 Annotation
The trial court's deliberate, though well-intended, removal of a class or group for cause without examination of individuals in the group was improper. State v. Chosa,
108 Wis. 2d 392,
321 N.W.2d 280 (1982).
805.08 Annotation
The trial court, sitting as the trier of fact, committed an error of law in making and relying on an unrequested, unannounced, unaccompanied, and unrecorded view of an accident scene in assessing evidence produced at trial. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Shannon,
120 Wis. 2d 560,
356 N.W.2d 175 (1984).
805.08 Annotation
When a juror incompletely responds to material questions on voir dire, a new trial is warranted if it is shown that it is more likely than not that the juror was biased against the moving party. State v. Wyss,
124 Wis. 2d 681,
370 N.W.2d 745 (1985). But see State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
805.08 Annotation
Law enforcement officers should not be automatically excused for cause from venire on grounds of implied bias. State v. Louis,
156 Wis. 2d 470,
457 N.W.2d 484 (1990). But see State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
805.08 Annotation
Prospective jurors related to a state witness by blood or marriage to the third degree must be struck from the jury panel. State v. Gesch,
167 Wis. 2d 660,
482 N.W.2d 99 (1992). But see State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
805.08 Annotation
The verdict of a 13 member jury panel agreed to by the defense and prosecution was valid. State v. Ledger,
175 Wis. 2d 116,
499 N.W.2d 199 (Ct. App. 1993).
805.08 Annotation
An appellate court should overturn a circuit court's determination that a prospective juror can be impartial only if the juror's bias is manifest, and not when there is a reasonable suspicion of bias. The test for manifest bias is stated. State v. Ferron,
219 Wis. 2d 481,
579 N.W.2d 654 (1998). But see State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
805.08 Annotation
Juror bias may be actual, implied, or inferred. Inferred bias is a factual finding requiring evaluation of the facts and circumstances including those surrounding the juror's incomplete or incorrect response to questions during voir dire. Truthful responses do not prevent finding inferred bias. State v. Delgado,
223 Wis. 2d 270,
588 N.W.2d 1 (1999). But see State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999) for a review of this case to apply new terminology regarding juror bias.
805.08 Annotation
The terms "statutory bias," subjective bias," and "objective bias" are adopted as the proper terms for referring to types of jury bias, replacing the terms "implied bias," "subjective bias," and "objective bias." State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
805.08 Annotation
Statutory bias refers to those situations described in sub. (1); a person falling within one of the sub. (1) descriptions may not serve regardless of the ability to be impartial. State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
805.08 Annotation
Subjective bias is revealed through the words and demeanor of the prospective juror as revealed on voir dire; it refers to the juror's state of mind. State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
805.08 Annotation
Objective bias focuses on whether a reasonable person in the individual prospective juror's position could be impartial; the circuit court is particularly well positioned to determine objective bias. State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
805.08 Annotation
Wyss, Louis, Gescch, State v. Messelt,
185 Wis. 2d 254, Ferron, Delgado, and State v. Broomfield,
223 Wis. 2d 465, are cases through which jury bias jurisprudence has evolved; where each would fall given the new bias terminology adopted in this case is considered. State v. Faucher,
227 Wis. 2d 700,
596 N.W.2d 770 (1999).
805.08 Annotation
There is no automatic disqualification of potential jurors who have been convicted of crimes. State v. Mendoza,
227 Wis. 2d 838,
596 N.W.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1998).
805.08 Annotation
A prospective juror who is the brother-in-law of a state witness is a relative by marriage to the 3rd degree under Gesch and must be struck for cause as the relationship constitutes statutory bias. Failure to do so is grounds for reversal and a new trial. State v. Czarnecki,
231 Wis. 2d 1,
604 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1999).
805.08 Annotation
In deciding subjective bias, the particular words of the juror are not the focus. A prospective juror need not respond in voir dire with unequivocal declarations of impartiality. State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3,
232 Wis. 2d 103,
606 N.W.2d 238. But see also Oswald v. Bertrand,
249 F. Supp 2d 1078 (2003).
805.08 Annotation
Objective bias requires a direct, critical, personal connection between the individual juror and crucial evidence or a dispositive issue in the case, or the juror's intractable negative attitude to the justice system in general. A reasonable person can be impartial despite a relationship to a police officer or past experience as an officer. State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3,
232 Wis. 2d 103,
606 N.W.2d 238. But see also Oswald v. Bertrand,
249 F. Supp 2d 1078 (2003).
805.08 Annotation
Peremptory challenges may not be exercised, and therefore not changed, after the parties have accepted the jury, even if the jury has not yet been sworn. State v. Nantelle, 2000 WI App 110,
235 Wis. 2d 91,
612 N.W.2d 356.
805.08 Annotation
A party who during voir dire neither requests further questioning nor objects to the seating of a juror may not later allege error in the trial court's failure to act sua sponte in regard to a juror who may not be impartial. State v. Williams, 2000 WI App. 123,
237 Wis. 2d 591,
614 N.W.2d 11.
805.08 Annotation
The court's finding that a murder trial juror was not objectively biased was reasonable. Although the juror had a business and social relationship with the victim, the juror did not have a personal connection to crucial evidence or a dispositive issue in the case, a negative attitude toward the justice system, or such a close relationship with the victim that no reasonable person in her position could not be impartial. State v. Lindell, 2000 WI App 180,
238 Wis. 2d 422,
617 N.W.2d 500.
805.08 Annotation
A prospective juror who openly admits bias and is never questioned about his or her partiality is is subjectively biased as a matter of law. State v. Carter, 2002 WI App 55,
650 Wis. 2d 851,
641 N.W.2d 517.
805.08 Annotation
Guarantees of open public proceedings in criminal trials includes voir dire examination of potential jurors. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.
464 U.S. 501 (1984).
805.08 Annotation
No new trial was required when a juror's failure to disclose during voir dire was harmless. Mc Donough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood,
464 U.S. 548 (1984).
805.08 Annotation
The use of peremptory challenges by a private litigant in a civil action to exclude potential jurors solely because of race violates the equal protection clause. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co.,
500 U.S. 614,
114 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1991).
805.08 Annotation
Analyzing Juror Bias Exhibited During Voir Dire in Wisconsin: How to Lessen the Confusion. Raissi. 84 MLR 517 (2000).
805.08 Annotation
State v. Louis: A Missed Opportunity to Clarify when Law Enforcement Officials May Serve as Petit Jurors in Criminal Cases. 1992 WLR 757.
805.08 Note
Note: See also notes to Article I, section 7.
805.09
805.09
Juries of fewer than 12; five-sixths verdict. 805.09(2)
(2) Verdict. A verdict agreed to by five-sixths of the jurors shall be the verdict of the jury. If more than one question must be answered to arrive at a verdict on the same claim, the same five-sixths of the jurors must agree on all the questions.
805.09 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 700 (1975);
1977 c. 318;
1977 c. 447 s.
210; Sup. Ct. Order No.
96-08, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997).
805.09 Annotation
Five-sixths jury agreement is not required on all questions on the verdict, but on all questions necessary to support a judgment on a particular claim. A verdict must be reviewed on a claim-by-claim basis rather than as a whole. Giese v. Montgomery Ward, Inc.
111 Wis. 2d 392,
331 N.W.2d 585 (1983).
805.09 Annotation
The trial court's order to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages and to try the separate issues before separate juries contravened s. 805.05 (2) and cannot be reconciled with the requirement of sub. (2) that the same five-sixths of the jury must agree on all questions necessary to sustain a verdict. Waters v. Pertzborn, 2001 WI 62,
243 Wis. 2d 703,
627 N.W.2d 497.
805.10
805.10
Examination of witnesses; arguments. Unless the judge otherwise orders, not more than one attorney for each side shall examine or cross-examine a witness and not more than 2 attorneys on each side shall sum up to the jury. The plaintiff shall be entitled to the opening and final rebuttal arguments. Plaintiff's rebuttal shall be limited to matters raised by any adverse party in argument. Waiver of argument by either party shall not preclude the adverse party from making any argument which the adverse party would otherwise have been entitled to make. Before the argument is begun, the court may limit the time for argument.
805.10 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 701 (1975);
1975 c. 218.
805.10 Annotation
An attorney's concession during closing argument that his client was negligent could not be construed as a binding admission. Kuzmic v. Kreutzmann,
100 Wis. 2d 48,
301 N.W.2d 266 (Ct. App. 1980).
805.10 Annotation
This section authorizes judges to allow more than 2 attorneys on each side to sum up to the jury, but a judge may not limit to fewer than 2 the number of attorneys arguing on each side. In Interest of C.E.W.
124 Wis. 2d 47,
368 N.W.2d 47 (1985).
805.11
805.11
Objections; exceptions. 805.11(1)
(1) Any party who has fair opportunity to object before a ruling or order is made must do so in order to avoid waiving error. An objection is not necessary after a ruling or order is made.
805.11(2)
(2) A party raising an objection must specify the grounds on which the party predicates the objection or claim of error.
805.11(3)
(3) Exceptions shall never be made.
805.11 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 701 (1975);
1975 c. 218.
805.12
805.12
Special verdicts. 805.12(1)(1)
Use. Unless it orders otherwise, the court shall direct the jury to return a special verdict. The verdict shall be prepared by the court in the form of written questions relating only to material issues of ultimate fact and admitting a direct answer. The jury shall answer in writing. In cases founded upon negligence, the court need not submit separately any particular respect in which the party was allegedly negligent. The court may also direct the jury to find upon particular questions of fact.
805.12(2)
(2) Omitted issue. When some material issue of ultimate fact not brought to the attention of the trial court but essential to sustain the judgment is omitted from the verdict, the issue shall be deemed determined by the court in conformity with its judgment and the failure to request a finding by the jury on the issue shall be deemed a waiver of jury trial on that issue.
805.12(3)
(3) Clerk's entries after verdict. Upon receiving a verdict, the clerk shall make an entry on the minutes specifying the time the verdict was received and the court's order setting time for motions after verdict under
s. 805.16. The verdict and special findings shall be filed.
805.12 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 702 (1975);
1975 c. 218.
805.12 Annotation
If the court can find as a matter of law that a party is causally negligent, contrary to the jury's answer, and the jury attributes some degree of comparative negligence to that party, the court should change the causal negligence answer and permit the jury's comparison to stand. Ollinger v. Grall,
80 Wis. 2d 213,
258 N.W.2d 693 (1977).
805.12 Annotation
If the answer to one material question shows that the jury answered perversely, the court should set aside the entire verdict unless it is satisfied that the other questions were not affected by the perversity. Fouse v. Persons,
80 Wis. 2d 390,
259 N.W.2d 92 (1977).
805.12 Annotation
When the verdict form did not contain a special fact question regarding the major issue of the case, real issues had not been tried. Schulz v. St. Mary's Hospital,
81 Wis. 2d 638,
260 N.W.2d 783.
805.12 Annotation
If evidence conflicts and inconsistent theories on the cause of the event are advanced, instructions on both theories should be given. Sentell v. Higby,
87 Wis. 2d 44,
273 N.W.2d 780 (Ct. App. 1978).
805.12 Annotation
An inconsistent verdict, if not timely remedied by reconsideration by the jury, must result in a new trial unless the party injured by the inconsistency waives the portion of its damage claim and the waiver does not result in a change of the prevailing party as found by the jury. Westfall v. Kottke,
110 Wis. 2d 86,
328 N.W.2d 481 (1983).
805.12 Annotation
Ambiguities in jury questions were "omitted issues" under sub. (2) and properly determined by the trial court. Badtke v. Badtke,
122 Wis. 2d 730,
364 N.W.2d 547 (Ct. App. 1985).
805.12 Annotation
Special verdict formulation in Wisconsin. Decker and Decker, 60 MLR 201.
805.12 Annotation
Product liability verdict formulation in Wisconsin. Slattery et al. 61 MLR 381.
805.13
805.13
Jury instructions; note taking; form of verdict. 805.13(1)(1)
Statements by judge. After the trial jury is sworn, all statements or comments by the judge to the jury or in their presence relating to the case shall be on the record.
805.13(2)
(2) Preliminary instructions and note taking. 805.13(2)(a)(a) After the trial jury is sworn, the court shall determine if the jurors may take notes of the proceedings:
805.13(2)(a)1.
1. If the court authorizes note-taking, the court shall instruct the jurors that they may make written notes of the proceedings, except the opening statements and closing arguments, if they so desire and that the court will provide materials for that purpose if they so request. The court shall stress the confidentiality of the notes to the jurors. The jurors may refer to their notes during the proceedings and deliberation. The notes may not be the basis for or the object of any motion by any party. After the jury has rendered its verdict, the court shall ensure that the notes are promptly collected and destroyed.
805.13(2)(a)2.
2. If the court does not authorize note-taking, the court shall state the reasons for the determination on the record.
805.13(2)(b)
(b) The court may give additional preliminary instructions to assist the jury in understanding its duty and the evidence it will hear. The preliminary instructions may include, without limitation, a description of the nature of the case, what constitutes evidence and what does not, guidance regarding the burden of proof and the credibility of witnesses, and directions not to discuss the case until deliberations begin. Any such preliminary jury instructions may be given again in the charge at the close of the evidence. The additional preliminary instructions shall be disclosed to the parties before they are given and either party may object to any specific instruction or propose instructions of its own to be given prior to trial.
805.13(3)
(3) Instruction and verdict conference. At the close of the evidence and before arguments to the jury, the court shall conduct a conference with counsel outside the presence of the jury. At the conference, or at such earlier time as the court reasonably directs, counsel may file written motions that the court instruct the jury on the law, and submit verdict questions, as set forth in the motions. The court shall inform counsel on the record of its proposed action on the motions and of the instructions and verdict it proposes to submit. Counsel may object to the proposed instructions or verdict on the grounds of incompleteness or other error, stating the grounds for objection with particularity on the record. Failure to object at the conference constitutes a waiver of any error in the proposed instructions or verdict.
805.13(4)
(4) Instruction. The court shall instruct the jury before or after closing arguments of counsel. Failure to object to a material variance or omission between the instructions given and the instructions proposed does not constitute a waiver of error. The court shall provide the jury with one complete set of written instructions providing the burden of proof and the substantive law to be applied to the case to be decided.
805.13(5)
(5) Reinstruction. After the jury retires, the court may reinstruct the jury as to all or any part of the instructions previously given, or may give supplementary instructions as it deems appropriate.
805.13 History
History: Sup. Ct. Order,
67 Wis. 2d 585, 703 (1975);
1975 c. 218;
1979 c. 128;
1981 c. 358; Sup. Ct. Order, 130 Wis. 2d xi (1987).
805.13 Note
Judicial Council Note, 1986: Sub. (2) (b) is amended to provide that preliminary instructions may include a description of the nature of the case, what constitutes evidence and what does not, guidance regarding the burden of proof and the credibility of witnesses, and directions not to discuss the case until deliberations begin.
805.13 Annotation
Sub. (4) is amended to required that the court provide the jury one written copy of its instructions regarding the burden of proof. [Re Order eff. 7-1-86]
805.13 Annotation
Specific evidentiary facts may be incorporated into an instruction provided they do not lead the jury to believe that the court has prejudged the evidence. State v. Dix,
86 Wis. 2d 474,
273 N.W.2d 250 (1979).
805.13 Annotation
Under sub. (3), a failure to object waives errors of substance as well as of form. Gyldenvand v. Schroeder,
90 Wis. 2d 690,
280 N.W.2d 235 (1979).
805.13 Annotation
It was proper to instruct a jury that it need not consider a lesser offense if it found the defendant guilty of a higher one. State v. McNeal,
95 Wis. 2d 63,
288 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1980).
805.13 Annotation
Although failure to object at the verdict conference to a substantive defect in the verdict constituted waiver, failure to object did not preclude the court's consideration of the defect under s. 751.06. Clark v. Leisure Vehicles, Inc.
96 Wis. 2d 607,
292 N.W.2d 630 (1980).
805.13 Annotation
When an objection at the verdict conference was not specific enough to preserve an appeal, the supreme court reversed the trial court under s. 751.06. Air Wisconsin, Inc. v. North Central Airlines, Inc.
98 Wis. 2d 301,
296 N.W.2d 749 (1980).
805.13 Annotation
Under the separation of powers doctrine, ss. 805.13 (4) and 972.10 (5) require submission to the jury of written instructions on the substantive law but do not require an automatic reversal when the trial court fails to do so. Instructions on the burden of proof and presumption of innocence are procedural, not substantive law. In Matter of E. B.
111 Wis. 2d 175,
330 N.W.2d 584 (1983).
805.13 Annotation
When an alleged error went to the integrity of the fact-finding process, the trial court exercised its discretion to review the circumstantial evidence instruction irrespective of the defendant's waiver of objection. State v. Shah,
134 Wis. 2d 246,
397 N.W.2d 492 (1986).
805.13 Annotation
It is not error for the trial court to fail to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense. The trial court should not interfere with the parties' trial strategy. State v. Myers,
158 Wis. 2d 356,
461 N.W.2d 777 (1990).
805.13 Annotation
Instructional rulings are to be made at the close of the evidence. A party is not entitled to a mid-trial advisory ruling on whether an instruction will be given. Such a ruling, if given, is nonbinding and not subject to appeal. State v. Sohn,
193 Wis. 2d 346,
535 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1995).
805.13 Annotation
If an attorney disagrees with an instruction that a judge decides to give during an off-the-record conference, the attorney must object to the instruction on the record to preserve the issue for appeal. Steinberg v. Jensen,
204 Wis. 2d 115,
553 N.W.2d 820 (Ct. App. 1996).
805.13 Annotation
Appellate courts have no power to reach waived issues concerning unobjected to jury instructions. State v. Ward,
228 Wis. 2d 301,
596 N.W.2d 887 (Ct. App. 1999).
805.13 Annotation
A party is not held to a waiver under sub. (3) when a potentially inconsistent verdict is produced by the substance of the jury's verdict, as opposed to the wording of the verdict. LaCombe v. Aurora Medical Group, 2004 WI App 119, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___,
03-2093.
805.14
805.14
Motions challenging sufficiency of evidence; motions after verdict. 805.14(1)
(1)
Test of sufficiency of evidence. No motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law to support a verdict, or an answer in a verdict, shall be granted unless the court is satisfied that, considering all credible evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, there is no credible evidence to sustain a finding in favor of such party.
805.14(2)
(2) Nonsuit abolished; misdesignation of motions. 805.14(2)(a)(a) The involuntary nonsuit is abolished. If a motion for involuntary nonsuit is made, it shall be treated as a motion to dismiss.
805.14(2)(b)
(b) When a party mistakenly designates a motion to dismiss as a motion for directed verdict, or vice versa; or mistakenly designates a motion to change answer as a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or vice versa; or otherwise mistakenly designates a motion challenging the sufficiency of evidence as a matter of law, the court shall treat the motion as if there had been a proper designation.
805.14(3)
(3) Motion at close of plaintiff's evidence. At the close of plaintiff's evidence in trials to the jury, any defendant may move for dismissal on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. If the court determines that the defendant is entitled to dismissal, the court shall state with particularity on the record or in its order of dismissal the grounds upon which the dismissal was granted and shall render judgment against the plaintiff.
805.14(4)
(4) Motion at close of all evidence. In trials to the jury, at the close of all evidence, any party may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as a matter of law by moving for directed verdict or dismissal or by moving the court to find as a matter of law upon any claim or defense or upon any element or ground thereof.
