Nebraska Revised Statute 25-1124

Chapter 25 Section 1124

25-1124.

Rendition of verdict; polling of jury.

When the jury have agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court, their names called by the clerk, and the verdict rendered by the foreman. When the verdict is announced, either party may require the jury to be polled, which is done by the clerk asking each juror if it is his verdict. If any one answer in the negative, the jury must again be sent out for further deliberation.

Source

  • R.S.1867, Code § 290, p. 443;
  • R.S.1913, § 7863;
  • C.S.1922, § 8807;
  • C.S.1929, § 20-1124;
  • R.S.1943, § 25-1124.

Annotations

  • Verdict of jury should be received only when judge is present and the court open for the transaction of business; objection to verdict on ground that it was irregularly received by trial court cannot be properly raised for first time in appellate court. In re Estate of Lodge, 123 Neb. 531, 243 N.W. 781 (1932).

  • Provision that names of jurors must be called by clerk is directory merely. Bryan v. Manchester, 111 Neb. 748, 197 N.W. 425 (1924).

  • This section does not apply to a criminal prosecution. Evers v. State, 84 Neb. 708, 121 N.W. 1005 (1909).

  • Mere statement by foreman in open court that jury has agreed, without stating nature of decision, is not a verdict. Union P. R. R. Co. v. Connolly, 77 Neb. 254, 109 N.W. 368 (1906).

  • Where upon reading of sealed verdict same is challenged by a juror and jury is subsequently unable to agree, it was properly discharged. Lincoln Trac. Co. v. Heller, 72 Neb. 127, 100 N.W. 197 (1904).

  • By agreement, jury may after agreeing, seal verdict and deliver to officer in charge; when opened in their presence, if defective, jury may be sent out to correct. Rogers v. Sample, 28 Neb. 141, 44 N.W. 86 (1889).

  • When polling the jury, the trial court is not required to go beyond the procedure specified in this section by inquiring into the basis for the jury's determination of the percentage of a party's negligence, because such inquiry would invade the province of the jury. Anis v. BryanLGH Health System, 14 Neb. App. 372, 707 N.W.2d 60 (2005).