 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore11/3/1993
ed such questions generally follow the Borkoski approach of either allowing voir dire to assist in the exercise of peremptory challenges, or requiring a preliminary showing of recent advertisements by insurance companies directed at potential jurors, or both. See King v. Westlake, 572 S.W.2d 841 (Ark. 1978); Sutherlin v. Fenenga, 111 N.M. 767, 810 P.2d 353 (N.M. App. 1991); Babcock v. Northwest Memorial Hosp., 767 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1989); Doe v. Hafen, 772 P.2d 456 (Utah App. 1989), cert. denied, 800 P.2d 1105 (Utah 1990); Evans by and through Evans v. Doty, 824 P.2d 460 (Utah App. 1991); McCroskey v. Proctor, 332 S.E.2d 646 (W. Va. 1985); Wardell v. McMillan, 844 P.2d 1052 (Wyo. 1992).
Maryland, as we have observed, has, up to this point, regarded the function of voir dire as discovering disqualifying information that would support challenges for cause, and not for assisting in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Additionally, unlike in some other States, the Maryland Court of Appeals has taken a firm stand against a plaintiff injecting into a case the probable existence of insurance coverage. Morris v. Weddington, supra, 320 Md. 674, and cases cited therein. The context in which the issue must be considered is therefore somewhat different in this State than in Montana or some of the other States following a Borkoski analysis. We also have the precedential effect of Kujawa, supra, 224 Md. 195, and Jones, supra, 252 Md. 475.
We need not consider here whether, with that background, we would be authorized to adopt the Borkoski approach, for, even if we were, the record in this case would not establish error on the part of the trial court. In Borkoski, the inquiry was allowed with respect to specific articles recently published by insurance companies and aimed at potential jurors. The questions proposed here were, with one exception, far more general. The most narrowly drawn called attention to President Bush's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, the text of which was not presented to the trial court. This was not something generated by insurance companies; nor was it apparently directed at potential jurors, admonishing them, in their own self-interest, to limit damage awards. These proposed questions, in other words, were not proper even under a Borkoski approach, and were clearly not required under the current state of Maryland law.
We also see no abuse of discretion in the court's refusal to permit Question 5, asking whether prospective jurors would be biased "because you are a taxpayer in Baltimore City or because you or a close relative or friend works or worked for the City." This was clearly covered in the questions asked by the court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED;
APPELLANTS TO PAY THE COSTS.
Disposition
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; APPELLANTS TO PAY THE COSTS.
|