Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-119 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

Arkansas Model Jury Instructions: Introductory and Closing Instructions, Use of General Verdict and Interrogatories, Negligence, Proximate Cause, Owners and Occupiers of Land, Common Carriers, Railroads, and Comparative Negligence, 20 Ark. L. Rev. 66.

Michael Kiel Kaiser, Case Note: Blueford v. Arkansas: Why the United States Supreme Court's Construction of Arkansas's Criminal Transitional Jury Instructions Is Not Binding on Arkansas Courts, 66 Ark. L. Rev. 1083 (2013).

Case Notes

Applicability.

This section pertains to civil trials and was inapplicable in this criminal case. Adams v. State, 2009 Ark. 375, 326 S.W.3d 764 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 1021, 130 S. Ct. 1922, 176 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2010).

Objections.

Where the verdict was in writing, rendered in open court, received without objection, and duly recorded, appellant waived any objection to the requirement that the verdict forms be signed. Fisher v. Valco Farms, 328 Ark. 741, 945 S.W.2d 369 (1997).

Polling the Jury.

When, on a poll of the jury, a juror answered that he did not believe the verdict was right but agreed to it for the sake of harmony, it will not be said that he answered in the negative but that he answered in the affirmative and that the verdict was his own. Williams v. Williams, 112 Ark. 507, 166 S.W. 552 (1914).

Where in proceedings for assessment of damages for lands verdict was signed by the foreman only and record showed no request for a poll of the jury, presumption obtains that the verdict was unanimous and the signatures of the jurors were therefore not required. Montgomery County v. Cearley, 192 Ark. 868, 95 S.W.2d 554 (1936).

Court's refusal to allow defendant's counsel to poll the jury in order to inquire about the dollar amount it intended plaintiff to recover was proper since this section only permits polling the jury to ask each juror if the verdict is his verdict. Northwestern Nat'l Cas. Co. v. Mays, 273 Ark. 16, 616 S.W.2d 734 (1981).

A trial judge, before ruling on a motion to modify the verdict, should not have an ex parte conversation with some of the jurors about anything which caused them to assent to the verdict. To do so is error. Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988).

When, after a driver admitted liability for a car crash, a jury awarded an allegedly injured party zero damages, the party did not waive an objection to the verdict by declining to poll the jury; declining to poll a jury does not bar an appeal under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59. Wallis v. Keller, 2015 Ark. App. 343, 464 S.W.3d 128 (2015).

—Failure to Request Poll.

Although there may have been a unanimous verdict which was not disclosed because of failure to poll the jury, a new trial was granted where an instruction was given pursuant to a void statute that agreement by nine jurors would substantiate a verdict. Davis v. H.A. Nelson & Son, 132 Ark. 436, 201 S.W. 511 (1918).

Where neither party required jury to be polled, verdict became final, and defendant could not complain that verdict was not unanimous. Browne v. Dugan, 189 Ark. 551, 74 S.W.2d 640 (1934).

There is a presumption that the verdict was unanimous and the signatures of the jurors were therefore not required. Montgomery County v. Cearley, 192 Ark. 868, 95 S.W.2d 554 (1936).

Verdict.

It is error to refuse to a jury permission to retire and reconsider their verdict where, on hearing it read by the clerk, they state to the court that it is not their verdict. Saxon v. Foster, 69 Ark. 626, 65 S.W. 425 (1901). See also Harris v. Graham & Bordley, 86 Ark. 570, 111 S.W. 984 (1908).

The requirement that the verdict be written and signed by the foreman may be waived where an unsigned verdict is rendered in open court and duly received without objection and thereafter recorded. Hodges v. Bayley, 102 Ark. 200, 143 S.W. 92 (1912).

Where two verdicts are written on the same paper and signed beneath by the foreman, there is sufficient compliance with the statute. Fox v. State, 156 Ark. 428, 246 S.W. 863 (1923).

Fact that a question mark appeared on the written verdict after the amount of damages was awarded did not invalidate the verdict, the jury having been asked by the court whether it was their verdict after it was read by the clerk and having replied in the affirmative. Price-Snapp-Jones Co. v. Brown, 184 Ark. 1143, 45 S.W.2d 517 (1932).

The verdict should reflect the true and correct and final conclusion of the jury and if before discharging the jury, it is made known to the court that the jury has misunderstood the instructions, it is no error to permit the jury to further consider their verdict, after the instructions have been explained. Clift v. Jordan, 207 Ark. 66, 178 S.W.2d 1009 (1944).

Trial court errs in making a substantive amendment to the verdict after the discharge of the jury. Coran v. Keller, 295 Ark. 308, 748 S.W.2d 349 (1988).

Neither statute nor long-standing precedent permitted the trial court to recall the jury after discharge and poll the individual jurors based on a claim that the jury misunderstood the instructions; nor did the law allow the jury to correct or amend its verdict once it was discharged from the case and had left the presence and control of the court. Spears v. Mills, 347 Ark. 932, 69 S.W.3d 407 (2002).

Verdict Forms.

District court did not abuse it's discretion, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, by using general verdict form instead of special verdict form submitted by defendant which alleged plaintiff's comparative fault. Davis v. Ford Motor Co., 128 F.3d 631 (8th Cir. 1997).

Cited: Womack v. Brickell, 232 Ark. 385, 337 S.W.2d 655 (1960); Martin v. Blackmon, 277 Ark. 190, 640 S.W.2d 435 (1982).