aliunde rule in Ohio

2021“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein, ensure the finality of jury verdicts, and protect Vinton App. No. 20CA721 25 jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019- Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 296, cert. denied, 207 L.Ed.2d 1073 , 2020 WL 3146847 (June 15, 2020), citing State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); accord McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 269 , 35 S.Ct. 783 , 59 L.Ed 1300 (1915) (inquiries into jury deliberations may occur only in “gravest and m

2021“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein, ensure the finality of jury verdicts, and protect Vinton App. No. 20CA721 25 jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019- Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 296, cert. denied, 207 L.Ed.2d 1073 , 2020 WL 3146847 (June 15, 2020), citing State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); accord McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 269 , 35 S.Ct. 783 , 59 L.Ed 1300 (1915) (inquiries into jury deliberations may occur only in “gravest and m

2019See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶21} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2019See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶21} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2019See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶21} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2018See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶28} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2019See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶21} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2018See State v. Kehn, 50 Ohio St.2d 11, 18 , 361 N.E.2d 1330 (1977), certiorari denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 180 , 54 L.Ed.2d 130 (1977). {¶28} The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein.

2019State v. Adams, 141 Ohio St. 423 (1943); see also Evid.R. 606(B) (staff notes citing Adams and stating "the aliunde rule does not apply where the irregularity is due to the conduct of an officer of the court").2 There is nothing to suggest in this case that the prosecutor intentionally or maliciously showed the juror the excluded evidence, yet it was surely "erroneous" or an "impropriety" to have displayed the excluded photograph in a position in which it could have been (and was) observed by a member of the jury who admitted that she told the other jurors what she had seen. {¶ 19} Thus, we ag

2018Miami No. 81 CA 47, 1982 WL 3795 , *8 (Sept. 10, 1982), quoting State v. Adams, 141 Ohio St. 423, 427 , 48 N.E.2d 861 (1943). {¶ 61} The aliunde rule is codified in Evid.R. 606(B), which provides: Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror’s mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith.

2019“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein. * * * The rule is designed to ensure the finality of jury verdicts and to protect jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000), citing State v. Rudge, 89 Ohio App.3d 429, 438-439 , 624 N.E.2d 1069 (1993). -16- {¶ 38} Initially, we note that Evid.R. 606(B) contains three basic parts: (1) the rule excludes inquiry into juror thought process or related statements or the reasoning leading to a juror's conclusions, (2) the

2019“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein. * * * The rule is designed to ensure the finality of jury verdicts and to protect jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000), citing State v. Rudge, 89 Ohio App.3d 429, 438-439 , 624 N.E.2d 1069 (1993). -16- {¶ 38} Initially, we note that Evid.R. 606(B) contains three basic parts: (1) the rule excludes inquiry into juror thought process or related statements or the reasoning leading to a juror's conclusions, (2) the

2012"This foundation must consist of information from sources other than the jurors themselves, and the information must be from a source which possesses firsthand knowledge of the improper conduct." Id., citing Wicker v. Cleveland, 150 Ohio St. 434 (1948). {¶ 22} Although the trial court alludes to the aliunde rule by generally citing Evid.R. 606(B), the trial court's decision is not based on that rule.

2007The Aliunde rule "is intended to preserve the integrity of the jury process and the privacy of deliberations, to protect the finality of the verdict, and to insulate jurors from harassment by dissatisfied or defeated parties, by prohibiting a court from questioning a juror about what occurred during deliberations, or about anything else that may have affected the juror's mind or emotions in the deliberations process once a final verdict is rendered." Hughes at ¶ 22 , citing State v. Scheibel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71 , 75 . {¶ 101} The Aliunde rule "is vital not only to protect jurors from hara

2003The aliunde rule, which has its origin deep within the common law, 4 has been incorporated into Evid.R. 606(B). 5 State v. Williams , 149 Ohio App.3d 434 , 2002-Ohio-4832 , at ¶ 49. {¶ 8} As noted in State v. Reiner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 342 , 350 , reversed on other grounds by Ohio v. Reiner (2001), 532 U.S. 17 : "The rule is intended to preserve the integrity of the jury process and the privacy of deliberations, to protect the finality of the verdict, and to insulate jurors from harassment by dissatisfied or defeated parties by prohibiting a court from questioning a juror about what occurred

2002See Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d at 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (considering alternate juror part of the jury for purposes of the aliunde rule), following State v. Reiner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 342 , 731 N.E.2d 662 , paragraph two of the syllabus (“Evidence received from an alternate juror, without other outside evidence, is insufficient aliunde evidence under Evid.R. 606[B] upon which a court may rely in order to conduct an inquiry of other jurors into the validity of a verdict”), overruled on other grounds (2001), 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.Ed.2d 158 .

2002VI {¶ 48} Appellant’s remaining assignments of error concern extraneous events that may have influenced the jury. {¶ 49} As a threshold matter, from the time of Lord Mansfield it has been the rule that the verdict of a jury may not be impeached by a member of the jury absent foundational evidence aliunde, “i.e. by evidence from some other source.” State v. Adams (1943), 141 Ohio St. 423, 427 , 25 O.O. 570 , 48 N.E.2d 861 , citing Vaise v. Delaval (K.B.1785), 1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng.Rep. 944; see, also, State v. Reiner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 342, 349 , 731 N.E.2d 662 . {¶ 50} The aliunde rule, along w

1986The aliunde rule in Ohio provides that the verdict of a jury may not be impeached by the statement of a member of a jury unless there is evidence aliunde, i.e., from some other source, to impeach the verdict. 4 State v. Adams (1943), 141 Ohio St. 423 , 25 O.O. 570 , 48 N.E. 2d 861, Kent v. State (1884), 42 Ohio St. 426 .

2003The aliunde rule, which has its origin deep within the common law, 4 has been incorporated into Evid.R. 606(B). 5 State v. Williams , 149 Ohio App.3d 434 , 2002-Ohio-4832 , at ¶ 49. {¶ 8} As noted in State v. Reiner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 342 , 350 , reversed on other grounds by Ohio v. Reiner (2001), 532 U.S. 17 : "The rule is intended to preserve the integrity of the jury process and the privacy of deliberations, to protect the finality of the verdict, and to insulate jurors from harassment by dissatisfied or defeated parties by prohibiting a court from questioning a juror about what occurred

2002See Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d at 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (considering alternate juror part of the jury for purposes of the aliunde rule), following State v. Reiner (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 342 , 731 N.E.2d 662 , paragraph two of the syllabus (“Evidence received from an alternate juror, without other outside evidence, is insufficient aliunde evidence under Evid.R. 606[B] upon which a court may rely in order to conduct an inquiry of other jurors into the validity of a verdict”), overruled on other grounds (2001), 532 U.S. 17 , 121 S.Ct. 1252 , 149 L.Ed.2d 158 .

2000See State v. Taylor (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 827 , 598 N.E.2d 818 .

2000See State v. Taylor (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 827 , 598 N.E.2d 818 .

2012"This foundation must consist of information from sources other than the jurors themselves, and the information must be from a source which possesses firsthand knowledge of the improper conduct." Id., citing Wicker v. Cleveland, 150 Ohio St. 434 (1948). {¶ 22} Although the trial court alludes to the aliunde rule by generally citing Evid.R. 606(B), the trial court's decision is not based on that rule.

1970The testimony of the juror was inadmissible because of the “aliunde rule.” In Wicker v. Cleveland (1948), 150 Ohio St. 434 , the one sentence syllabus is: “In the absence of evidence aliunde, the verdict of a jury may not be impeached by the testimony of a juror concerning the alleged misconduct of a member thereof.” Black’s Law Dictionary cites an Ohio Supreme Court case in stating the aliunde rule as follows: “AliuNde Rule.

2008See State v. Robb (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 59 , 79 .

2007Evid.R. 606(B); State v. Robb , 88 Ohio St.3d 59 , 2000-Ohio-275 . {¶ 72} Evid.R. 606(B), the aliunde rule, provides: {¶ 73} "Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith.

2021“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein, ensure the finality of jury verdicts, and protect Vinton App. No. 20CA721 25 jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019- Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 296, cert. denied, 207 L.Ed.2d 1073 , 2020 WL 3146847 (June 15, 2020), citing State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); accord McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 269 , 35 S.Ct. 783 , 59 L.Ed 1300 (1915) (inquiries into jury deliberations may occur only in “gravest and m

2021“The purpose of the aliunde rule is to maintain the sanctity of the jury room and the deliberations therein, ensure the finality of jury verdicts, and protect Vinton App. No. 20CA721 25 jurors from being harassed by defeated parties.” State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139 , 2019- Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d 616 , ¶ 296, cert. denied, 207 L.Ed.2d 1073 , 2020 WL 3146847 (June 15, 2020), citing State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 123 , 734 N.E.2d 1237 (2000); accord McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 269 , 35 S.Ct. 783 , 59 L.Ed 1300 (1915) (inquiries into jury deliberations may occur only in “gravest and m