Ray v. Gream, 75499

Decision Date17 August 1993
Docket NumberNo. 75499,75499
Citation860 S.W.2d 325
PartiesOllie RAY, et al., Respondents, v. Marvin C. GREAM, Jr., et al., Appellants.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Lawrence H. Rost, New Madrid, for appellants.

W. Edward Reeves, Caruthersville, Charles Sampson Williams, Kennett, for respondents.

LIMBAUGH, Judge.

This is an appeal in a will contest case. The trial court entered judgment upon a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, the contestants of the will of Myrtle F. Peterson. Defendants, the proponents of the will, appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, which reversed the judgment on the ground that the trial judge erred in failing to strike from the venire certain prospective jurors who the proponents challenged for cause. Having reviewed that issue on transfer from the Court of Appeals, we determine that there was no error, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Mrs. Peterson, widowed and childless, died on September 15, 1990, at age 79. Proponents of the will are two brothers, Marvin C. Gream, Jr. and Ronnie Lee Gream, who were not related to Mrs. Peterson. The Gream brothers, however, were longtime neighbors and friends with Mrs. Peterson. They farmed approximately 2,200 acres in the Missouri Bootheel, including a 140 acre tract that they had rented from Mrs. Peterson since about 1970. Contestants of the will, on the other hand, are Mrs. Peterson's two half brothers and a half sister.

On April 22, 1990, Mrs. Peterson was severely injured in an automobile accident that left her paralyzed from the neck down, and as a result of that injury, she was hospitalized until her death. During that time, she executed a power of attorney in favor of Marvin Gream so that he could handle her financial affairs while she was incapacitated. Subsequently, Mr. Gream, a nonlawyer, prepared a will for Mrs. Peterson by using his own will as a model. This was done apparently at Mrs. Peterson's request. Though paralyzed, she then, with the assistance of Mr. Gream, placed a "x" on the signature line. Two witnesses to the purported execution of the will signed the will while all were present. Adjacent to the "x" mark, Mr. Gream then wrote "Myrtle F. Peterson, Marvin C. Gream, Jr., Power of Attorney."

Under the terms of the will, Mrs. Peterson devised her 140 acre farm to the proponents, the Gream brothers, and she bequeathed her remaining property to the contestants, her half brothers and half sister. After the will was admitted to probate, this action was commenced. The allegations of contestants' petition included failure to comply with statutory requirements for the execution of wills as well as fraud and lack of testamentary capacity.

The proponents' sole point on appeal is that the trial judge erred by denying their challenges for cause against six members of the jury panel "who stated a clear and unequivocal bias against a person outside the family who is left property by a decedent." The more particular issue, as we see it, concerns the propriety and effect of efforts to rehabilitate those prospective jurors.

Because the dialogue at voir dire between the judge, the counsel, and the prospective jurors is critical to a resolution of the issue presented, we quote extensively from the record. The pertinent exchange began when counsel for the will proponents asked whether "anyone [has] any preconceived notion or otherwise about leaving property to someone outside your family?" In response to that question, the voir dire continued as follows:

MARY ANN SANDERS: Mary Ann Sanders. Are you trying to say that--do we think it's not right?

MR. ROST [proponents' attorney]: Yes. I'm saying if there was somebody that somebody in your family left property to and it wasn't a family member, would that be okay?

MARY ANN SANDERS: No. I've always been against that.

MR. ROST: So if the case--if the facts are such in this lawsuit that it develops a non-family member was left, in this case a farm, that you would be in a position to render a fair--

MARY ANN SANDERS: No.

MR. ROST: --verdict--

MARY ANN SANDERS: No, I wouldn't.

MR. ROST: --fair decision?

MARY ANN SANDERS: Huh-uh.

* * * * * *

MR. ROST: Anybody else have any problem like Ms. Sanders? We appreciate your honesty, Ms. Sanders. That's what we want to do. We want to make sure people can serve on this jury without having any problem with--in trying to make a decision.

LOIS TANNER: My name's Lois Tanner and I would be for the family.

MR. ROST: Yes.

LOIS TANNER: We are pretty--Well, I'd want what I have to go to somebody in my family.

THE COURT: Lei Ann, could you hear that? I really couldn't hear your answer.

LOIS TANNER: My name is Lois Tanner. And if this was my situation, I would want what I would leave to go to a member of my family regardless if there wasn't children. I wouldn't want it to go otherwise.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. ROST: Well, would that feeling that you've just stated, would it cause you to be uncomfortable in sitting on this jury today?

LOIS TANNER: Well, I think so.

MR. ROST: Could you not render a fair decision in this matter because of that notion?

LOIS TANNER: Not really. I don't know. But that's my feelings. If I-- someone were to have something, I think it should go to a member of a family.

* * * * * *

SHERRY RILEY: Sherry Riley. I think it should go to the family, too.

MR. ROST: Well, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Ms. Tanner and also Ms. Sanders: Could you serve on this jury and render a fair and impartial decision if the property was left to somebody besides a family member?

SHERRY RILEY: I don't think so. I would--In my opinion I think it should go to the family regardless.

MR. ROST: You could not be impartial?

SHERRY RILEY: I guess I could.

THE COURT: Well, you think you can be impartial or you can't be?

SHERRY RILEY: No, no. I think I'd still vote it goes to the family.

MR. ROST: All right. So there would be a partiality?

SHERRY RILEY: Yes.

MR. ROST: You are then biased in favor of the family member?

SHERRY RILEY: Yes.

* * * * * *

HARVEY PRINCE: Harvey Prince. I think everything ought to be to family there myself, too.

MR. ROST: You're Mr. Prince, aren't you?

HARVEY PRINCE: Right.

MR. ROST: And you think that everything should go to the family member regardless?

HARVEY PRINCE: Yes, sir, sure do. I feel they'd be more entitled to it than some outsider would.

MR. ROST: Under all circumstances?

HARVEY PRINCE: Yes, sir.

MR. ROST: So would you say then that it would be very difficult for you to listen to the testimony and to the witnesses today and then render a fair verdict or fair decision?

HARVEY PRINCE: I believe I'd have to lean toward the family mostly.

MR. ROST: You think you would be partial toward the family?

HARVEY PRINCE: Yes, sir.

MR. ROST: You could not be impartial? You could not be without this notion and bias toward the family?

HARVEY PRINCE: I don't think so.

MR. ROST: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir.

DARRELL ROBERTS: Darrell Roberts.

MR. ROST: Yes, Mr. Roberts.

DARRELL ROBERTS: Did you not ask do we have a preconceived notion about this?

MR. ROST: Preconceived, any type of notion.

DARRELL ROBERTS: Well, I have to be honest and say that I just feel things should go to the family because of past things that have happened in my family. And you asked me the question could I be fair I'd like to say I could be. In making a judgment, if I were chosen to be on the jury, I think I would take the evidence and think of it. But I still have that preconceived notion. I have to be honest.

MR. ROST: Would you--then you would start this trial with a notion leaning towards the family?

DARRELL ROBERTS: Yes, sir.

MR. ROST: And we would, "we" being the defendants, would have to overcome that; would we not?

DARRELL ROBERTS: Yes, sir.

MR. ROST: So in effect, you might--you might lean toward the family? If that's the case, you could end up being partial to the family?

DARRELL ROBERTS: Yes, sir. I'm sorry but that's ...

MR. ROST: Yes, sir. Mr. Pujol.

HENRY PUJOL: Don Pujol. I'd have to go the same way Mr. Roberts went on that. The way he stated is just the way I feel about it.

MR. ROST: I have to ask the same questions I asked Mr. Roberts.

HENRY PUJOL: All right.

MR. ROST: When we start this trial you're already-- HENRY PUJOL: I'm already in favor--

MR. ROST: --in favor of--

HENRY PUJOL: --of the family.

MR. ROST: --the family?

HENRY PUJOL: So you have to overcome that, you know.

MR. ROST: And it would be difficult for you to listen to the evidence?

HENRY PUJOL: Oh, I could listen to the evidence. And I don't know. I'm not saying--You have to overcome that, though.

MR. ROST: So you have this bias starting out?

HENRY PUJOL: (Nods head.)

MR. ROST: And that would influence your decision?

HENRY PUJOL: (Witness nods head.)

MR. ROST: And you could not be impartial?

HENRY PUJOL: Well, not totally impartial.

MR. ROST: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Richards.

TRUDY RICHARDS: Trudy Richards. You were talking about preconceived notions--

MR. ROST: Yes, ma'am.

TRUDY RICHARDS: --and bias?

MR. ROST: Right.

TRUDY RICHARDS: To begin with, I would probably lean more toward the family. But if it could be presented, you know, where I could understand why someone would leave property to people outside their family, I could go with that. But something that Mr. Williams said about the Greams going to the hospital with their power of attorney and their will, that struck me as wrong.

MR. ROST: Of course, what Mr. Williams has said--is not evidence in this case.

TRUDY RICHARDS: Yes, I know this.

MR. ROST: Evidence in this case will come from the witnesses. Statements that he has made and statements that I made are not evidence, and you understand that you have to listen to the witnesses.

TRUDY RICHARDS: I realize that. But that did put a preconceived notion in my mind.

MR. ROST: Would that make it very difficult for you to serve on this jury?

TRUDY RICHARDS: I think it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • State v. Jonas
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 1, 2017
    ...only if they preclude following the court's instructions. Thomas, 525 S.W.3d at 118 (citation omitted) (quoting Ray v. Gream, 860 S.W.2d 325, 333 n.1 (Mo. 1993) (en banc)). The prospective juror challenged by Jonas had no opinions or knowledge about the case. I would not second-guess the tr......
  • Joy v. Morrison
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 10, 2008
    ...it is proper for the trial court to consider the juror's testimony concerning his or her ability to act impartially. Ray v. Gream, 860 S.W.2d 325, 334 (Mo. banc 1993). The trial court is not prohibited from basing its determination on the opinions or conclusions of the jurors, but the trial......
  • Edley v. O'Brien
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 14, 1996
    ...their qualifications require review. The standards for reviewing trial courts' rulings on challenges for cause are set forth in Ray v. Gream, 860 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. banc Trial courts are given broad discretion to determine whether prospective jurors are qualified, and rulings on that issue "wi......
  • In the Matter of The Care v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2011
    ...and “it is proper for the trial court to consider the juror's testimony concerning his or her ability to act impartially.” See Ray v. Gream, 860 S.W.2d 325, 334 (Mo. banc 1993). “Initial reservations expressed by venirepersons do not determine their qualifications; consideration of the enti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 7.4 Challenges for Cause
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Civil Trial Practice 2015 Supp Chapter 7 Voir Dire and Jury Selection
    • Invalid date
    ...will not be disturbed absent “a clear abuse of discretion and a real probability of injury to the complaining party.” Ray v. Gream, 860 S.W.2d 325, 331 (Mo. banc 1993). But a trial court’s refusal to strike for cause members related to a litigating party within the fourth degree is grounds ......

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