Crawford v. Manning, 13948
| Decision Date | 25 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 13948,13948 |
| Citation | 542 P.2d 1091 |
| Parties | Ray L. CRAWFORD et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Frank Arthur MANNING, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Darrell G. Renstrom, Ogden, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert Bayle, of Bayle & Lauchnor, Salt Lake City, for defendant-respondent.
This appeal is from an adverse judgment and the refusal of the trial court to grant a new trial. The action was brought by the children for the wrongful death of their mother pursuant to Section 78--11--7, U.C.A.1953.
The facts upon which appellants rely for a reversal are not disputed and are stated by the respondent as follows:
1. That during the jury selection process in trial of the above-entitled matter on the 26th day of November, 1974, the Honorable John F. Wahlquist inquired about the attitude of prospective jurors towards the statute which allows a person to bring an action for the death of another. Judge Wahlquist then stated that some people thought of the money collected under the statute as blood money but that others approved of the statute.
2. That in response to said inquiry, a prospective juror, Mary W. Felix, said that she had strong feelings concerning anyone who would sue to recover money for the death of another; that, further, the Honorable John F. Wahlquist asked said juror whether or not she could render a verdict free of bias and prejudice, to which inquiry said juror responded in the affirmative.
3. That thereupon, counsel for the plaintiffs, Darrell G. Renstrom, requested a meeting at the bench with the Court and counsel for the defendant, F. Robert Bayle, at which time said counsel for the plaintiffs challenged said juror for cause, and that the Honorable Judge F. Wahlquist refused to excuse said juror for cause.
In the first place, the judge made a statement which if true is unknown to the members of this court, to-wit: 'Some people think money collected under the statute is blood money but others approve of the statute.' The statement was uncalled for and may have suggested to the jurors that the statute giving a right to sue for damages for the wrongful death of a parent was something to be criticized.
In the second place, a juror stated that she had strong feelings concerning anyone who would sue to recover money for the death of another. When the juror replied that she could render a verdict free of bias and prejudice, the court refused to excuse her although he had eight additional jurors to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carter, 920110
...In State v. Menzies, 235 Utah Adv.Rep. 23, --- P.2d ---- (Utah 1994), we overruled a line of cases stemming from Crawford v. Manning, 542 P.2d 1091 (Utah 1975). Under Crawford and its progeny, reversal was required whenever a party was compelled "to exercise a peremptory challenge to remove......
-
Randle v. Allen, 900189
...22, 27 (Utah 1984); State v. Brooks, 631 P.2d 878, 883 (Utah 1981); State v. Bailey, 605 P.2d 765, 768 (Utah 1980); Crawford v. Manning, 542 P.2d 1091, 1092 (Utah 1975). Randle also argues that the trial court erred in permitting Randle, UDOT, the County, and Allen to exercise the additiona......
-
State v. Wood
......Brooks, 563 P.2d 799, 802 (Utah 1977); Crawford v. Manning, 542 P.2d 1091, 1093 (Utah 1975). However, we will reverse the denial of a motion to ......
-
State v. Hickman
...long-standing Utah precedent and established a new rule, without explaining why it was doing so and with very little analysis. 542 P.2d 1091, 1093 (Utah 1975). In that case, the Utah Supreme Court held that a defendant should not be compelled to "waste" a peremptory challenge to obtain a la......