The court may, if it judges the jury has mistaken the evidence in the action and has brought in a verdict contrary to the evidence, or has brought in a verdict contrary to the direction of the court in a matter of law, return them to a second consideration, and for the same reason may return them to a third consideration. The jury shall not be returned for further consideration after a third consideration.
(1949 Rev., S. 7972; P.A. 82-160, S. 110.)
History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.
Embraces actions for a statutory penalty. 1 R. 493. New trial may be granted for wrong instructions given in returning jury. 9 C. 112. But not for expressing opinion in favor of a different verdict. 4 D. 406; 99 C. 416. Cited. 64 C. 65. When jury may be returned; discretion of court; instructions. 74 C. 584; 90 C. 262; 99 C. 416; 105 C. 530; 106 C. 728; 113 C. 254. Where jury is called in for further instructions or comes in to ask a question. 82 C. 618. If verdict returned a third time, it must be accepted. 89 C. 241. Discretion of court. 90 C. 276; 98 C. 462; 108 C. 553. Instructing jury as to duty to agree. 90 C. 385. Judge need not announce verdict returned because not in proper form. 72 C. 141. Verdict may be returned for addition of interest. 82 C. 615. Court may return jury where verdict is clearly inadequate; 90 C. 93; or where in homicide case, it doubts correctness of first degree verdict. 93 C. 244. Court should ordinarily permit clerk to read aloud verdict returned in proper form; affidavits of jurors that they understood and weighed charge cannot be used to support motion in arrest of judgment where court returned jury thinking they had not understood the charge. 105 C. 530. Proper for court to tell jury why they are returned; no error in remark that, if plaintiff was entitled to recover, amount was inadequate. 117 C. 436. Nor in comment that, if jury believed plaintiff's evidence concerning special damages, court felt inadequate amount had been allowed for general damages. 128 C. 56. Not a verdict until accepted by court, but court's silence when clerk proclaims verdict is acceptance. 120 C. 537. Court may return jury even though verdict not so unreasonable that if accepted it would have to be set aside. 133 C. 686. Not error for court to accept verdict on first count in murder case and return jury for further consideration of counts on which they could not agree. 134 C. 114. Cited. 143 C. 31. If jury's decision is unintelligible, court should direct jury, with appropriate instructions, to reconsider its verdict. 147 C. 72. Court may return jury for reconsideration of a verdict if it feels it is excessive; before jury is returned for reconsideration, its verdict should be read by the clerk and assented to by the foreman. Id., 191. Section did not apply where jury made 3 reports of disagreement to court; report of disagreement merely serves to inform court of inability of jury to reach a verdict and is not a verdict. 156 C. 159. Cited. 173 C. 183. Exercise of court's power in returning jury to reconsider verdict is not conditioned on verdict being so unreasonable that it would have to be set aside if accepted. 175 C. 230. Cited. 189 C. 1; 225 C. 238; Id., 420; 232 C. 480.
Cited. 28 CA 449; 38 CA 447; 45 CA 571.
The court may, in returning the jury, submit any issue save that of damages. 10 CS 99. Cited. 22 CS 41; 38 CS 400, 404.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1959–2026 · leading case:
State v. Chyung, 157 A.3d 628 (Conn. 2017).
State v. Chyung, 157 A.3d 628 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 9× “13 See General Statutes § 52-223. 14 Because of the important constitutional due process implications of legally inconsistent guilty verdicts, however, we conclude that, even if the defendant and the state have failed to object to the verdicts before the jury is discharged, that…”
Monti v. Wenkert, 947 A.2d 261 (Conn. 2008).
· cites it 4× “In other words, the defendant contends that the problems with the compromise verdict were exacerbated by the narrow scope of the trial court’s reconsideration instructions.”
Cruz v. Drezek, 397 A.2d 1335 (Conn. 1978).
· cites it 5× “General Statutes § 52-223, 3 which permits the court to return a jury to consider their verdict, appropriately employed, is a salutary and effective method of exercising judicial supervision over a verdict which may be rendered by a jury.”
Ginsberg v. Fusaro, 623 A.2d 1014 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 4× “Ginsberg argues that Fusaro should be estopped from claiming that the verdict should be set aside as inconsistent because she failed to assert that claim before the verdict was accepted and recorded and the jury dismissed.”
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen, 656 A.2d 1009 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 52-223 provides: “The court may, if it judges the jury has mistaken the evidence in the action and has brought in a verdict contrary to the evidence, or has brought in a verdict contrary to the direction of the court in a matter of law, return them to a…”
Bilodeau v. City of Bristol, 661 A.2d 1049 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 7× “See General Statutes § 52-223. Further, considering the fact that the trial court had not specifically instructed the jury that it needed to answer all of the interrogatories in the affirmative in order to return a plaintiff’s verdict, caution dictated that the jury be so…”
Van Nesse v. Tomaszewski, 829 A.2d 836 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “General Statutes § 52-223, 5 which permits the court to return a jury to consider their verdict, appropriately employed, is a salutary and effective method of exercising judicial supervision over a verdict which may be rendered by a jury.”
Rendahl v. Peluso, 162 A.3d 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “"[P]ursuant to General Statutes § 52-223, [t]he court may, if it judges the jury has mistaken the evidence in the action and has brought in a verdict contrary to the evidence, or has brought in a verdict contrary to the direction of the court in a matter of law, return them to a…”
Robbins v. Van Gilder, 622 A.2d 555 (Conn. 1993).
· cites it 5× “The plaintiff urged the court to follow the procedure provided in General Statutes § 52-223. 12 The defendants objected to that procedure, and again renewed their motions for a directed verdict or, in the alternative, suggested that “the judgment has to be made at this point…”
Szlinsky v. Denhup, 239 A.2d 505 (Conn. 1968).
· cites it 7× “*161 He also claims that the trial court violated § 52-223 of the General Statutes and Practice Book § 246 by returning the jury for further deliberations after it had received three reports of disagreement from the jury.”
State v. Martin, 454 A.2d 256 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 2× “; see General Statutes § 52-223; Practice Book § 311.”
Sullivan v. City of Norwalk, 612 A.2d 114 (Conn. App. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 2× “When the jury returned, it presented to the court the interrogatories with changes to the fifth and sixth answers, finding that the plaintiff had acted in due care and was not in any degree responsible for the accident.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.