 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Lakshmikanth8/25/2005
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez
Appellant, Michael Jones, appeals a take-nothing judgment entered against him in his medical malpractice suit against appellee, B.N. Lakshmikanth, M.D. By four issues, appellant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his challenges for cause as to veniremembers 2, 8, 20, 23, 25, 27. We affirm.
I. Background
As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts and all issues of law presented by this case are well settled, we will not recite the facts or the law here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for it. See TEX. R. APP. P.47.4.
II. Applicable Law
A party may raise a challenge for cause during jury selection in order to eliminate unfit jurors. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 228, 229. Bias and prejudice are statutory grounds for disqualification of a juror. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ยง 62.105(4) (Vernon 2005) (providing that a trial court must disqualify a prospective juror who shows "bias or prejudice in favor of or against a party in the case" or against the specific subject matter of the case). To establish that a juror is biased or prejudiced as a matter of law, the evidence must show that "the state of mind of the juror leads to the natural inference that he will not or did not act with impartiality." Compton v. Henrie, 364 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex. 1963). If the trial court finds that a juror is not biased or prejudiced as a matter of law, it has discretion to ascertain whether the juror's bias or prejudice is extreme enough to preclude the juror's fair assessment of the evidence, therefore necessitating the juror's dismissal. Malone v. Foster, 977 S.W.2d 546, 564 (Tex. 1998) (citing Swap Shop v. Fortune, 365 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tex. 1963)). Since the trial court observes voir dire, it is naturally in a better position to judge whether a prospective juror is biased or prejudiced. Cortez v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 87, 93 (Tex. 2005); Swap Shop, 365 S.W.2d at 154.
A prospective juror's responses to general questions alone are usually insufficient to establish bias or prejudice. Buls v. Fuselier, 55 S.W.3d 204, 209 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1991, no pet.) (citing Gant v. Dumas Glass & Mirror, Inc., 935 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1996, no writ)). For example, even an admission that one party would be "starting out ahead" merely represents skepticism, not an "unshakable conviction" that would merit the juror's disqualification. See Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 93. " A statement that is more a preview of a veniremember's likely vote than an expression of an actual bias is no basis for disqualification." Id. at 94. If a veniremember expresses what appears to be a bias, counsel may further question the juror to ascertain whether the apparent bias is in fact an actual bias. See id. at 92. The relevant inquiry is not where a veniremember starts but where he is likely to end. El Hafi v. Baker, 164 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam) (citing Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 94).
III. Standard of Review
We use the abuse-of-discretion standard to review a trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause. Kiefer v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 10 S.W.3d 34, 39 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). When determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, all the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Styers v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 115 S.W.3d 321, 325 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. denied).
An appellant who seeks to challenge the trial court's overruling of his challenge for cause must show (1) that a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|