City of Cheney v. Grunewald, 9003-5-III
Decision Date | 24 October 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 9003-5-III,9003-5-III |
Citation | 780 P.2d 1332,55 Wn.App. 807 |
Parties | CITY OF CHENEY, Respondent, v. Roy Vincent GRUNEWALD, Petitioner. |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
James Irwin, Irwin & Chinn, Spokane, for appellant.
Steven Miller, Miller & Wainwright, Cheney, for respondent.
About 2:16 a.m. on January 3, 1987, Roy Grunewald was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated pursuant to RCW 46.61.502(1). Trial commenced February 19. Mr. Grunewald challenged for cause a juror who disclosed he was a member of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (M.A.D.D.). The court denied the challenge, and Mr. Grunewald was convicted. He appeals contending the court abused its discretion by not excusing the juror for cause. We agree and reverse.
Prior to trial, during voir dire one of the prospective veniremen, Juror Bauman, disclosed his association with M.A.D.D. He stated he became a member of M.A.D.D. several years earlier when his niece was killed by an intoxicated driver. Although not an active member, he stated he contributes to the organization by paying annual dues. His deceased niece's mother is an active member of the organization. Mr. Bauman was then asked:
When questioned by defense counsel, Mr. Bauman stated he believed the intoxicated driver in his niece's case was guilty before he was tried, albeit he recognized he should not have formed that opinion before trial. He was then asked:
After questioning Mr. Bauman about his relationship to his sister-in-law and his association with M.A.D.D., defense counsel asked:
. . . . .
Mr. Grunewald challenged Juror Bauman for cause. This challenge was denied. Having exhausted his peremptory challenges, Mr. Bauman was seated as a juror.
Mr. Grunewald contends the denial of his challenge for cause deprived him of his right to a fair trial under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution and article 1, section 22 of the Washington State Constitution. We agree.
It is a fundamental tenet of our judicial system that inherent in a jury trial is a right to an unbiased jury. Rowley v. Group Health Co-op, 16 Wash.App. 373, 375, 556 P.2d 250 (1976). A prospective juror must be excused for cause if the trial court determines the juror is actually or impliedly biased. RCW 4.44.170, 4.44.180. Mr. Grunewald alleges actual bias, that is
the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the action, or to either party, which satisfies the court that the challenged person cannot try the issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the party challenging, ...
RCW 4.44.170(2). Even though a juror holds preconceived ideas, a juror need not be disqualified if he can put those aside and decide the case based on the evidence and the law. RCW 4.44.190; State v. White, 60 Wash.2d 551, 569, 374 P.2d 942 (1962), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 883, 84 S.Ct. 154, 11 L.Ed.2d 113 (1963). The denial of a challenge for cause lies within the discretion of the trial court which will not be reversed absent a manifest abuse. State v. Gilcrist, 91 Wash.2d 603, 590 P.2d 809 (1979). If a juror should have been excused for cause, but was not, the remedy is reversal. Miles v. F.E.R.M. Enters., Inc., 29 Wash.App. 61, 64, 627 P.2d 564 (1981).
Actual bias is not presumed simply by Mr. Bauman's association with a particular organization. See United States v. Carr, 584 F.2d 612 (2d Cir.1978); State v. Jones, 298 S.C. 118, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gutierrez
...constitutional error. RAP 2.5(a). A defendant has a constitutional right to an unbiased jury trial. City of Cheney v. Grunewald , 55 Wash. App. 807, 810, 780 P.2d 1332 (1989). "When a juror makes an unqualified statement expressing actual bias, seating the juror is a manifest constitutional......
-
In re Elmore
...when a juror is closely associated with a victim of the same type of offense as that being tried. See City of Cheney v. Grunewald, 55 Wash.App. 807, 780 P.2d 1332 (1989) (court erred in refusing to excuse juror for cause in DUI (driving under the influence) trial where juror was a member of......
-
State of Wash. v. RUSSELL
...108 Wn.2d at 749. "If a juror should have been excused for cause, but was not, the remedy is reversal." City of Cheney v. Grunewald, 55 Wn. App. 807, 810, 780 P.2d 1332 (1989). Actual bias supports a challenge for cause. RCW 4.44.170(2). "Actual bias" is "the existence of a state of mind on......
-
State v. Russell
... ... 25 P.3d 423 (2001); City of Wenatchee v. Durham , 43 ... Wn.App. 547, 550-51, 718 P.2d 819 ... reversal." City of Cheney v. Grunewald , 55 ... Wn.App. 807, 810, 780 P.2d 1332 (1989) ... ...
-
Chapter §47.6 Analysis
...is sufficient justification for the court to grant a challenge for cause and its failure to do so is error. City of Cheney v. Grunewald, 55 Wn.App. 807, 811, 780 P.2d 1332 The granting or denial of a challenge for cause lies within the discretion of the trial court, which will not be revers......