 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Banks v. Village Enterprises12/5/2000
R>
Q: Ma'am, now, you just said that your husband had suffered from depression.
A: He does, but not from a choking incident.
Q: Well, the question was --
THE COURT: The question speaks for itself.
Juror Thomas, who indicated that her son suffered from manic depression, was also examined by counsel for KFC:
Q: Now, during the course of the Voir Dire when I asked you questions and all the other prospective questions and when Mr. Masters asked questions of all the jurors did you disclose the fact that your son suffered from that condition during the Voir Dire process?
A: No. I didn't realize there was anybody asked me if there was any depression in my family.
She also, like Juror Brantnor, was asked, verbatim, the question asked during voir dire:
Q: Question, ma'am, now mind you I'm taking you back to when were you in Voir Dire . . . at that time . . . question was asked . . . "Mr. Banks alleges that he suffered severe mental problems or depression, post traumatic stress disorder and even some symptoms of excessive compulsive disorder as a result of this choking incident at KFC in Brookfield and what I need to know on behalf of the defendant is whether or not any of you or any member of your immediate family have had a similar problem." Now, considering the whole question, how would you answer it accurately when you were in the Voir Dire? . . .
A: If you mean that we had had the same problem from choking stuff causing manic depression, no.
Q: Okay. Thank you. Put it another way. As far as you know his mental condition, illness or disorder, whatever it might be, what you believe is manic depression, as far as you know it doesn't have anything to do with choking?
A: No.
Q: And wasn't caused as far as you know by choking?
A: No.
The question as asked did not clearly ask for jurors to reveal all cases of depression in their family. It was ambiguous, and could reasonably be interpreted to ask only about mental disorders caused by choking rather than about any mental disorder. In fact, the qualifications included in the question indicate that this may well be all that counsel was intending to inquire about at the time the question was asked during voir dire. In any event, the trial court in its discretion could have believed the jurors' explanation that they, in fact, interpreted the question to ask only about depression resulting from choking incidents, not about all types of depression. Given the jurors' interpretation of the question, their responses were accur-ate. Indeed, as the trial court said " he question speaks for itself." The trial court was within its discretion in finding that the jurors reasonably interpreted the question and did not intentionally fail to disclose relevant information. See Aliff v. Cody, 987 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (recognizing that counsel's questions may reasonably be deemed to narrow the scope of information sought, resulting in unintentional failure to disclose relevant information).
As noted above, when "nondisclosure is not intentional, a new trial is not required unless prejudice is shown to exist from the nondisclosure which 'may have influenced the verdict.'" Aliff, 987 S.W.2d at 444 (internal citations omitted). Here, KFC has directed us to no cases which suggest that it could have successfully challenged jurors Brantnor and Thomas for cause simply because members of their respective families suffered from mental disorders, the causes of which were substantially different than Mr. Banks' choking incident. KFC relies on Rodenhauser v. Lashly, 481 S.W.2d 231 (Mo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|