in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

theory of the case, for which there was evidentiary support, were placed before the jury. Thus, we find that the jury was properly instructed on apportionment of damages. This assignment of error is without merit. V. MISCONDUCT REGARDING THE JURY FOREPERSON REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL. 62. In this alleged error Goodyear claims juror misconduct. Specifically, Goodyear claims a juror and an attorney for the plaintiffs, failed to disclose certain information, which it claims would have kept the juror off of the jury. Goodyear said that the juror: (1) failed to disclose during voir dire that she had a son who was killed in an automobile accident, and (2) the juror and plaintiffs’ attorney, Dan Kitchens, failed to disclose that Dan Kitchens served as a pallbearer at the juror’s son’s funeral. The juror went on to become the jury foreman. (A) Disclosure of the Juror’s Son’s Accidental Death 63. It was never clearly established in the record whether the juror’s son’s fatal wreck involved alcohol. During voir dire, Goodyear directly questioned prospective jurors about drunk driving with the following question: “How many of you have either yourself or had a family member of yours or a friend of yours that was injured in an automobile accident where the driver had been drinking alcohol?” Three prospective jurors raised their hands and explained that they had friends who had been injured or killed by a drunk driver. 36
7 Prospective juror D.K. did not respond to the question. However, at an unrelated criminal 8 trial, which was heard three days earlier, and involved the same jury pool and the Kitchens Law Firm representing the defendant, D.K. was asked a similar question and responded that 9 her son had been killed in an automobile accident in 1996. In that criminal trial, James Kitchens, who was representing the defendant, explained the elements of vehicular manslaughter and then asked the jury: “Ladies and gentlemen, with that explanation, has anyone close to you been involved in that kind of situation?” 64. D.K. raised her hand, and Kitchens responded. The following exchange took place: D.K. Q. All right. Thank you. That’s [D.K.] raising her hand. And, [D. K.], do you mind if I follow up with that a little bit? Of course, I don’t want to embarrass you in any way. I know you lost your son, and I remember it so well. You would probably agree with me that you think about that every day, don’t you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And your son and two other young men died in a tragic accident. A. 10 years ago. 7 It serves no purpose to name the juror, therefore, we will refer to her by the initials 8 A copy of the voir dire of the jury from the Copiah County Circuit Court case of State of Mississippi v. Travis Braddy, No. 2005-0108CR, conducted on October 23, 2006, was included in the record. 9 Circuit Court Judge Frank Vollor of Vicksburg presided over the criminal case by special appointment, while the instant case was presided over by special appointment by Circuit Court Judge Forrest A. Johnson, Jr., of Natchez. The special appointment became necessary when District 22 Circuit Court Judge Lamar Pickard of Hazlehurst, on his own motion, entered an order of recusal because James Kitchens was representing him in a legal matter. 37
Page 1 and 2: IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STAT
Page 3 and 4: II. The Jury Had Insufficient Evide
Page 5 and 6: automobile continued rotating and h
Page 7 and 8: 2 to its retailers regarding select
Page 9 and 10: said that there was a radial split
Page 11 and 12: terrain where the accident occurred
Page 13 and 14: proper and the jury’s verdict sho
Page 15 and 16: a short time frame, deflated, and t
Page 17 and 18: Instruction No. 7 for appeal. “To
Page 19 and 20: 33. However, procedural bar notwith
Page 21 and 22: Rubber Company, is not an insurer a
Page 23 and 24: finds it incorrectly states the law
Page 25 and 26: the parties and the actions that th
Page 27 and 28: Summary.” The original document,
Page 29 and 30: feasors, the trier of fact shall de
Page 31 and 32: plaintiff’s damages by the percen
Page 33 and 34: 3. Subtract the result of your mult
Page 35: 59. In denying the submission of th
Page 39 and 40: Thus, we find that this part of the
Page 41 and 42: 942, 948 (Miss. 1992). Moreover, th
Page 43 and 44: throughout the trial in an effort t
Page 45 and 46: of Instruction No. 9 was cautioning
Page 47 and 48: (Emphasis added). BY MR. ALLRED: Ob
Page 49 and 50: statement. THE COURT: All right. Th
Page 51 and 52: were only about half of what the ju
Page 53 and 54: manhood, and the pain and suffering
Page 55 and 56: “[h]e’ll blurt things out not m
Page 57 and 58: 108. Finding that there was no erro

in the court of appeals of the state - Mississippi Supreme Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?