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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

had they visited in her home. The question then becomes whether this lack of disclosure by the juror and the plaintiffs’ attorney is enough to constitute juror misconduct. 69. “The selection of jurors is a ‘judgment call peculiarly within the province of the circuit judge, and one we will not on appeal second guess in the absence of a record showing a clear abuse of discretion.’” Adkins v. Sanders, 871 So. 2d 732, 740 (31) (Miss. 2004) (quoting Brown ex rel. Webb v. Blackwood, 697 So. 2d 763, 771 (Miss. 1997)). An appellate court will only reverse the trial court when the court “clearly is of the opinion that a juror was not competent." Id. (quoting Fleming v. State, 732 So. 2d 172, 181 (27) (Miss. 1999)). Further, the promise of a prospective juror that he or she will remain impartial is given great deference even when circumstances raise questions about his or her qualification to serve. Adkins, 871 So. 2d at 742 (40). 70. The standard of review for juror misconduct arising from a failure to respond to questions during voir dire is as follows: Where a prospective juror fails to respond to a question by defense counsel on voir dire, the court should determine whether the question was: (1) relevant to the voir dire examination, (2) whether it was unambiguous, and (3) whether the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. If all answers to the above questions are affirmative, then the court determines if prejudice to the defendant in selecting the jury can be inferred from the juror's failure to respond. Barker v. State, 463 So. 2d 1080, 1083 (Miss. 1985) (citing Odom v. State, 355 So. 2d 1381 (Miss. 1978)). This test, although frequently applied in criminal trials, is equally applicable to allegations of juror misconduct in civil suits. See T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason, 614 So. 2d 40
942, 948 (Miss. 1992). Moreover, the Odom test has been expanded to include a fourth prong requiring that "prejudice . . . in selecting the jury could reasonably be inferred from the juror's failure to respond." Payton v. State, 897 So. 2d 921, 954 (131) (Miss. 2003) (citing Chase v. State, 645 So. 2d 829, 847 (Miss. 1994)). “There is no ‘unbending rule for every situation that might arise’ on the voir dire of prospective jurors,” so each case must be decided on the facts of that case. Mariner Health Care, Inc. v. Estate of Edwards, 964 So. 2d 1138, 1147 (19) (Miss. 2007). 71. “There is no absolute rule of disqualification based on a juror's relationship to an attorney in the case.” Thompson v. O’Rourke, 339 S.E. 2d 505, 506 (S.C. 1986) (citing State v. Nicholson, 70 S.E.2d 632 (1952)). The circumstances of each case determines whether a basis for disqualification exists. Id. 72. When we apply the Odom test, we find that there was no juror misconduct. First, the question of whether the jurors knew any of the attorneys was relevant. While not in itself a disqualifying relationship, it can become so upon further inquiry. Second, the question was not ambiguous as the jurors were simply asked if they knew any of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. However, the test ends on the third prong. Goodyear had the burden on appeal to show that D.K. had knowledge that Dan Kitchens served as a pallbearer at her son’s funeral and that this relationship should have disqualified her from serving on the jury in this case. Despite Goodyear’s arguments, the record stands uncontradicted that she did not know. Goodyear offered no proof of her knowledge on the pallbearer issue. Instead, Goodyear focused on D.K.’s failure to answer a voir dire question about whether some family member had been 41
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 and 36: 59. In denying the submission of th
Page 37 and 38: 7 Prospective juror D.K. did not re
Page 39: Thus, we find that this part of the
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?