Morris v. Spencer, WD
Decision Date | 07 January 1992 |
Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
Citation | 826 S.W.2d 10 |
Parties | Janice E. MORRIS and Larry Morris, Appellants, v. Donald M. SPENCER, Respondent. 44394. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael W. Manners, Independence, for appellants.
Thomas W. Wagstaff, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before KENNEDY, P.J., and FENNER and BRECKENRIDGE, JJ.
Appellants, Janice and Larry Morris, appeal adverse judgments, after trial by jury, on their claims against respondent, Donald Spencer, M.D. Appellants had alleged that Dr. Spencer aggravated an injury to Janice Morris' knee.
In their sole point on appeal, appellants argue that the trial court erred in overruling their challenge, for cause, to two venirepersons. Appellants complain that the trial court should have conducted an independent inquiry into the competency of the venirepersons in question to serve as jurors because they had personal and business relationships with Dr. Spencer.
The decision to remove a venireperson for cause on a non-statutory basis is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and that decision is not to be overturned unless there is a clear and certain abuse of that discretion with any doubts resolved in favor of the trial judge's discretion. Collins v. West Plains Memorial Hospital, 735 S.W.2d 404, 405 (Mo.App.1987). Even though a juror has some business or personal relationship with a party, the trial court has broad discretion in determining the qualifications of such venirepersons to sit as jurors and such discretionary rulings are not to be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly and manifestly wrong. Id. 1
The trial judge is in a far better position to make a determination as to the qualifications of a potential juror than an appellate court, as that determination necessarily involves a judgment of the demeanor of the venireperson. State v. Johnson, 721 S.W.2d 23, 29 (Mo.App.1986). However, when a venireperson makes an equivocal response an appellate court is justified in making a more thorough review of a challenged juror's qualifications. Catlett v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company, 793 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Mo. banc 1990).
In the case at bar, the responses of venirepersons Thornburg and Carson are called into question. The record reflects the following relevant exchanges during voir dire between counsel for appellant and venireperson Thornburg:
The pertinent questions by appellant's counsel and answers by venireperson Carson were as follows:
* * * * * *
The following general questions were also asked during voir dire:
COUNSEL [for appellant]: Is there anyone here who would be embarrassed, if the evidence warrants it, the evidence justifies it, who would be embarrassed to be a part of a verdict for plaintiff? Anybody here who would fall into that category, it would bother them if they were a part of a verdict that was for plaintiffs if the evidence supported it?
(No responses.)
COUNSEL [for respondent]: Now, you've heard a lot of questions, and some of them, although I said I wasn't going to be repetitive I have to admit some of them probably were repetitive, but, and I think you understand that, why we're asking you these questions is to get a feel for whether there's any reason you wouldn't be a fair and impartial juror in this case, just this case alone is all we're worried about right now. And, if there's any reason that any of you feel that we haven't touched upon by any of our questions, that you would not be a fair and impartial juror to both sides, to Mr. and Mrs. Morris and to Dr. Spencer, now's the time to let us know....
(No responses.)
Counsel for appellant also asked the following question of venirepersons Thornburg, Carson and a third venireperson who had been a patient of Dr. Spencer:
COUNSEL [for appellant]: I want to ask you three, because you all have been treated by him and had a good recovery from it and good experience, would you find it difficult to believe that in another case in another situation that Dr. Spencer did not provide proper care, would you have difficulty believing that because of your experience?
VENIREPERSON THORNBURG: No.
(No other responses.)
Venireperson Thornburg stated clearly and unequivocally that she could be fair to appellant in spite of the fact that she had been a patient of Dr. Spencer's some fifteen years previously. Venireperson Carson stated that he did not believe his familiarity with Dr. Spencer would affect him and that he believed he could be fair. Mr. Carson did not believe that having known Dr. Spencer or having been his patient would effect his ability to hear the evidence even to the slightest degree.
Idioms such as "I believe I could" are common vernacular for definitive expressions of a person's state of mind. Such expressions are not equivocations. State v. Evans, 701 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Pride, 567 S.W.2d 426, 433 (Mo.App.1978). As adeptly stated by Judge Smith in Pride at 433, "As much as judges and lawyers might desire it, people generally do not speak in absolutes, probably because they realize that few things are ever absolute."
The responses of venirepersons Thornburg and Carson were not equivocal such as to allow the closer scrutiny by this court of the trial judge's discretion in failing to excuse these venirepersons as found appropriate by the court in Catlett, 793 S.W.2d at 351.
The discretion lies with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Edley v. O'Brien
...The fact that she had been a patient of one of the defendant doctors did not disqualify her from serving as a juror. Morris v. Spencer, 826 S.W.2d 10, 11-13 (Mo.App.1992). The trial court's denial of the challenge for cause was not an abuse of discretion. Point I is Point II is directed to ......
-
Andersen v. Osmon
...believe I could" are common terms for definitive expressions of a person's state of mind and are not equivocations. Morris v. Spencer, 826 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo.App. W.D.1992). Respondent's counsel did not attempt to clarify either of the jurors' non-verbal responses to show any possible bias d......
-
Sheffler v. Arana
...the basis of questions and answers elicited on voir dire as well as the demeanor and credibility of the venireperson. Morris v. Spencer, 826 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo.App.1992). The critical question in reviewing the exercise of discretion is whether the challenged venireperson indicated unequivoca......
-
Rhodus v. Wheeler
...observe and evaluate the demeanor of a prospective juror, did not abuse its discretion by striking Kates for cause. See Morris v. Spencer, 826 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo.App.1992). Point In his second point, Mr. Rhodus asserts that the court erred in refusing to allow him to amend the pleadings to a......
-
Section 45 Voir Dire
...of prior collection action filed against her for medical services ruled not to constitute grounds for new trial). In Morris v. Spencer, 826 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992), the trial court overruled the plaintiff’s motion to excuse two jurors for cause even though both had been patients of t......