 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jones v. Lakshmikanth8/25/2005
onclude that veniremember 20 was biased as a matter of law. See Compton, 362 S.W.2d at 182. Furthermore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining veniremember 20 could fairly assess the evidence and, thus, was not biased or prejudiced. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 62.105(4) (Vernon 2005); Malone, 977 S.W.2d at 564.
2. Veniremember 25
Appellant contends that veniremember 25 established her bias or prejudice because her nephew had been appellee's patient. However, because veniremember 25 said she could be fair to both sides and no other evidence established any bias or prejudice, the trial court denied appellant's challenge for cause.
Although veniremember 25 previously accompanied her nephew on visits to see appellee, she never stated or implied that her nephew's past physician-patient relationship with appellee would in any way affect her ability to fairly judge appellee. Furthermore, veniremember 25 twice stipulated that she could be fair and that she would not favor appellee over appellant. The record contains no additional evidence that veniremember 25 might have been biased. Thus, contrary to appellant's claim, veniremember 25's nephew's past physician-patient relationship with appellee by itself does not establish her bias or prejudice as a matter of law. See Compton, 362 S.W.2d at 182. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied appellant's challenge to dismiss veniremember 25. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 62.105(4) (Vernon 2005); Malone, 977 S.W.2d at 564.
We overrule appellant's third and fourth issues.
V. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
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.
|
|