Miles v. Dennis

Decision Date11 May 1993
PartiesPhyllis A. MILES and Marjorie A. Williams, Appellants, v. Daniel W. DENNIS, Respondent. WD 45973.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

William H. Pickett, David T. Greis, Kansas City, for appellants.

Sylvester Powell, Jr., Lance W. Lefevre, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

SPINDEN, Judge.

Phyllis A. Miles and Marjorie A. Williams appeal a jury verdict for Daniel W. Dennis in their lawsuit against him for injuries arising out of an automobile accident. They appeal on several grounds generally related to the trial court's admitting evidence they allege was inadmissible and for permitting Dennis to assert an "improper" defense. We affirm.

The lawsuit arose out of a collision on April 13, 1985, in Kansas City between cars driven by Dennis and Miles. Williams was a passenger in Miles' car. The wreck occurred when Dennis' car suddenly pulled into the lane in which Miles' car was traveling and hit the left side of her car.

Dennis admitted that he did not look into the adjoining lane before driving his car into it. He told the jury that he was attempting to get away from a third man, who did not testify at trial, who had threatened him and the occupants of his car with a gun.

The entire incident began, according to Dennis, when he stopped for a traffic light. The driver of the car ahead of him got out of his vehicle and, carrying a gun in his waistband, walked back to Dennis' car. The gunman insisted that someone in Dennis' car had made an offensive gesture at him. He pointed the gun at Dennis and shouted, "Do you want to f____ with me now?" Dennis said he stepped on his accelerator and steered his car into the adjoining lane to get around the assailant. His car collided with Miles' vehicle.

Dennis told the jury that he was so scared that he never considered looking into the adjoining lane for oncoming traffic. He said that his only thought was to get away before the assailant shot him.

Dennis testified that after his car hit Miles' car, he and the passengers in his car got out to talk to Miles and to investigate the damage. The assailant left the scene but returned a brief while later with others and attacked Dennis and his passengers. During the fight, someone knocked Dennis against Miles' car door. Miles pushed Dennis out of the way trying to get into her car. She slipped onto one knee. Eventually, she and Williams got back into their car and locked their doors until the fight was over. After the fight, one of them gave a passenger in Dennis' car a cloth to wipe the blood off of his face. Miles and Williams then left the scene before the police arrived.

Miles' first point concerns the trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial because of a conversation between Dennis' attorney and a juror during trial. During a lunch break, a juror approached the attorney and asked him for a business card. The attorney responded, "I don't want to be arrogant, but I can't talk to you." The conversation ended. Miles moved for a mistrial, or, in the alternative, for a substitution of the alternate juror for the juror who approached Dennis' attorney. The court denied both requests.

Miles concedes that the attorney did not have an "evil motive," and did nothing to initiate or take advantage of the juror's approach. She argues, however, that the juror's actions demonstrated bias for the defense. The point is without merit.

The test for juror misconduct is:

Parties and jurors should avoid all appearance of evil, and if any contact motivated by improper design appears, the jury should ordinarily be discharged or a new trial granted, regardless of the existence of actual prejudice. Accidental and casual contacts with jurors are of rather common occurrence and often unavoidable. If the contact has been wholly innocent, a mistrial should not ordinarily be granted unless it can reasonably be found that there was some improper influence on the jury.... Where a juror, by some inquiry or voluntary statement has raised a question as to his impartiality, the question becomes essentially one of fact, and primarily this decision rests with the trial court.

Sunset Acres Motel, Inc. v. Jacobs, 336 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo.1960). Applying this standard to this case, we conclude that the trial court properly denied Miles' requests for a mistrial or substitution of the alternate juror.

Miles alleges in her second point that the trial court admitted "a miasma of irrelevant and misleading information that could have no effect but to cloud the minds of the jurors." She complains that the trial court overruled her objections to evidence of:

The fight after the collision;

Injuries to Dennis and one of the passengers in his car, Troy McCormick, from the fight and whether McCormick was still troubled by the mouth injury he suffered;

Whether Dennis was polite to Miles and Williams after the collision;

The thoughts of another passenger in Dennis' car, Gary Cooper, when he saw the assailant approach Dennis' car;

Whether Dennis' hip had a pin in it; and

Dennis' marital status.

A trial court has much discretion in determining relevancy of evidence of a collateral matter. Smith v. Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, 826 S.W.2d 41, 45 (Mo.App.1992); Boehmer v. Boggiano, 412 S.W.2d 103, 110 (Mo.1967). "[C]onsiderable leeway is allowed even on direct examination for proof of facts that do not bear directly on the purely legal issues, but merely fill in the background of the narrative and give it interest, color, and lifelikeness." McCormick on Evidence, § 185 at 774 (4th ed. 1992).

Evidence of the fight and its surrounding details was relevant. Miles made it relevant by suggesting that Dennis and his passengers fabricated the assailant to excuse...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • J.T. v. Anbari
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2014
    ...impartiality, the question becomes essentially one of fact, and primarily this decision rests with the trial court.Miles v. Dennis, 853 S.W.2d 406, 408 (Mo.App.W.D.1993) (quoting Sunset Acres Motel, Inc. v. Jacobs, 336 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo.1960) ). Under this rule, communications that involv......
  • J.T. v. Anbari
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2014
    ...his impartiality, the question becomes essentially one of fact, and primarily this decision rests with the trial court.Miles v. Dennis, 853 S.W.2d 406, 408 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (quoting Sunset Acres Motel, Inc. v. Jacobs, 336 S.W.2d 473, 479 (Mo. 1960)). Under this rule, communications that......
  • Foster v. Catalina Indus., SD23760
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 7, 2001
    ...of the record confirms this. Giving a withdrawal instruction is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Miles v. Dennis, 853 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Mo.App. 1993). Failure to give a withdrawal instruction is reversible error only when the evidence sought to be withdrawn creates a false is......
  • In re Adoption of F.C.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 2008
    ... ... "A judgment for error is not to be reversed unless the complainant suffered injury or prejudice." Miles v. Dennis, 853 S.W.2d 406, 409 (Mo.App. W.D ... 274 S.W.3d 487 ... 1993). In fact, the trial court could have stricken the GAL's testimony as ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT