Rule 606 Competency of juror as witness. (a) At the trial. A member of the jury may not testify as a witness before that jury in the trial of the case in which the member is sitting as a juror.
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify concerning the effect of anything upon the juror's 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. Nor may the juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror indicating an effect of this kind be received. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1; gen ch 1985]
RULE 606 COMMENTARY
Subsection (a) of this rule is similar to Fed. R. Evid. 606(a) except that the second sentence of the federal rule, "If he is called so to testify, the opposing party shall be afforded an opportunity to object out of the presence of the jury," is omitted as unnecessary. Subsection (b) is taken verbatim from the 1971 draft of Rule 606(b) of the Proposed Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates, 51 F.R.D. 315, 387 (1971).
Subsection (a): Despite the common law tradition that a juror was generally competent to testify as a witness, see McCormick §68, such a rule is inconsistent with the juror's role as an impartial trier of fact. It offers dangers analogous to those discussed in the commentary to Rule 605 supra.
Subsection (b): Under traditional English common law, the general competency of a juror to testify as a witness had one limitation: he was barred from giving testimony to impeach his own verdict. See McCormick §68; Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T.R. 11, 99 Eng. Rep. 944 (K.B. 1785). "The values sought to be promoted," according to the Advisory Committee's Note to the original proposal for federal Rule 606(b), "include freedom of deliberation, stability and finality of verdicts, and protection of jurors against annoyance and embarrassment." However, the blanket prohibition also bars testimony relevant to misconduct, irregularities, and improper influences external to the process of deliberation. The intent of this subsection is to strike a proper balance by excluding testimony relating to the internal deliberative process and allowing testimony about objective misconduct and irregularities. No attempt is made to specify substantive grounds for setting aside verdicts.
The Advisory Committee's Note to the original federal proposal, upon which subsection (b) is modeled, said: "The trend has been to draw the dividing line between testimony as to mental processes, on the one hand, and as to the existence of conditions or occurrences of events calculated improperly to influence the verdict, on the other hand, without regard to whether the happening is within or without the jury room.... The jurors are the persons who know what really happened. Allowing them to testify as to matters other than their own reactions involves no particular hazard to the values sought to be protected. The rule is based upon this conclusion." For example, under this rule jurors would be competent to testify to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by deliberating jurors, a matter which under some circumstances may be cause for setting aside a verdict, see Kealoha v. Tanaka, 45 H. 457, 370 P.2d 468 (1962). A similar rule is found in Cal. Evid. Code §1150.
Case Notes
Where respondents contended that the court's colloquy with the jury was prohibited by subsection (b), the court's questions did not require the jurors to discuss their thoughts, emotions, or mental processes. Among other things, the court's first three inquiries asked only if the verdict "accurately reflected" each juror's verdict; the questions regarding the accuracy of the verdict did not fall within the prohibition in subsection (b). 131 H. 437, 319 P.3d 356 (2014).
Juror competent to testify about objective juror misconduct. 7 H. App. 1, 739 P.2d 251 (1987).
Jury foreperson's misrecollection of evidence barred. 7 H. App. 424, 774 P.2d 246 (1989).
Trial court did not err when it concluded that subsection (b) precluded the consideration of juror number 11's post-verdict affidavit which purported to demonstrate juror number 7's incompetence to participate in deliberations and render a verdict where the affidavit proffered by juror 11 fell far short of the "strong evidence" of incompetence necessary to merit a further inquiry. 120 H. 94 (App.), 201 P.3d 607 (2006).
Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to correct verdict and enter judgment or the motion to resubmit where circuit court found that the jury's error was that it misunderstood the legal effect of its answer to a simple yes-or-no question and was not merely a clerical error; the record amply supported this finding; this type of juror confusion was not a basis for amending the verdict. 129 H. 250 (App.), 297 P.3d 1106 (2013).
Structure Hawaii Revised Statutes
106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.
201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts.
302 Presumptions in civil proceedings.
303 Presumptions imposing burden of producing evidence.
304 Presumptions imposing burden of proof.
306 Presumptions in criminal proceedings.
401 Definition of "relevant evidence".
402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible.
403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.
404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes.
405 Methods of proving character.
407 Subsequent remedial measures.
408 Compromise, offers to compromise, and mediation proceedings.
409 Payment of medical and similar expenses.
410 Inadmissibility of pleas, plea discussions, and related statements.
412 Sexual offense and sexual harassment cases; relevance of victim's past behavior.
501 Privileges recognized only as provided.
502 Required reports privileged by statute.
504 Physician-patient privilege.
504.1 Psychologist-client privilege.
509 Privilege against self-incrimination.
511 Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.
512 Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.
513 Comment upon or inference from claim of privilege; instructions.
601 General rule of competency.
602 Lack of personal knowledge.
605 Competency of judge as witness.
606 Competency of juror as witness.
608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness.
609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime.
610 Religious beliefs or opinions.
611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation.
612 Writing used to refresh memory.
613 Prior statements of witnesses.
614 Calling and interrogation of witness by court.
616 Televised testimony of child.
701 Opinion testimony by lay witnesses.
704-416 overrides this rule. 71 H. 591, 801 P.2d 27 (1990).
703 Bases of opinion testimony by experts.
704 Opinion on ultimate issue.
705 Disclosure of facts or data underlying expert opinion.
803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
804 Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.
806 Attacking and supporting credibility of declarant.
901 Requirement of authentication or identification.
903 Subscribing witness' testimony unnecessary.
1003 Admissibility of duplicates.
1004 Admissibility of other evidence of contents.
1007 Testimony or written admission of party.
1008 Functions of court and jury.
1102 Jury instructions; comment on evidence prohibited.
626-2 Effective date; applicability to future cases and pending cases.