Opinion

Halverson v. Anderson

  • 82 Wash. 2d 746
  • 513 P.2d 827
  • 1973 Wash. LEXIS 720
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Sep 6, 1973
Status
Published
Author
Hale
On the bench
Rosellini
Cited by
38 cases
Authority
More cited than 6.0%

The opinion

*753 Hale, C.J.

(dissenting) — I doubt that any jury has ever deliberated upon its verdict entirely free of the kind of remarks and observations described in the court’s opinion. To vacate a verdict because of them I think violates the sanctity of the jury room and contrary to long-standing principles permits the jury to impeach its own verdict. Setting aside this verdict on the stated grounds erects new barriers to finality of verdict and judgment in a judicial system already overburdened with superfluous procedural machinery.

The Court of Appeals, I think, decided this case correctly on the basis that the issue before it was

substantially the same as the question resolved by the Supreme Court in State v. Gobin, 73 Wn.2d 206, 210 , 437 P.2d 389 (1968)

and I would accordingly affirm that court’s decision.

Finley and Wright, JJ., concur with Hale, C.J.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.