is written, signed by the presiding juror, and read by the clerk to the jury, this subsection requires the court to ask the jury whether it is their verdict. The legislature’s use of the pronoun their in the subsection indicates that the legislature is treating the collective noun jury as plural, that is, the jury is functioning as individuals. Both K.S.A. 22-3421 and K.S.A. 60-248(g) require that each juror agree with the verdict. Consequently, this affords no basis for the State to contend that the signature of the presiding juror ensures that the verdict is that of the jury. Both K.S.A. 60-248(g) and K.S.A. 22-3421 incorporate the common-law rule that a verdict is of no force or validity until it is affirmed by the jury in open court. See Rigg v. Bias, 44 Kan. 148, 24 Pac. 56 (1890) (<HOLDING>); Young v. Seymour, 4 Neb. 86 (1875). In Bishop
recognizing that verdict must be affirmed by jury in open court to have force and validity holding that district court could not decide after jury returned verdict to treat jury verdict as advisory on issue not triable of right by jury but which was tried by consent of parties to nonadvisory jury holding that trial court erred in granting plea in bar as to murder when prior to receipt and publication of fact that jury could not reach a verdict on murder count jury had indicated in notes to the trial court that it had acquitted defendant of murder and holding that there was no verdict until it was received and published in open court holding that trial court was not required to instruct the jury to continue deliberations because despite jurors initial indication that the verdict was not hers she unequivocally affirmed the verdict in response to additional questions holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict