Rose v. Sheedy
Decision Date | 14 December 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 36106.,36106. |
Citation | 134 S.W.2d 18 |
Parties | PEARL ROSE v. JAMES SHEEDY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Greene Circuit Court. — Hon. Guy D. Kirby, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions to reinstate the verdict and enter judgment for defendant).
Sam M. Wear for appellant.
The trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion for new trial on the ground that her attorney was not permitted to ask the jury on the voir dire whether or not they were Protestants or Catholics. Connors v. United States, 15 Sup. Ct. 951; State v. McGee, 83 S.W. (2d) 196; Commonwealth v. Buzzell, 16 Pick. 154; State v. Talley, 22 S.W. (2d) 787; Allenbaugh v. State, 148 S.E. 624; Smith v. Sisters of the Good Shepherd, 87 S.W. 1083; Barton v. Erickson, 15 N.W. 206; Horst v. Silverman, 55 Pac. 52.
Collins & Pierce for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages in the sum of $10,000 for an alleged assault. A trial resulted in a verdict for appellant, defendant below. The trial court granted plaintiff a new trial and defendant appealed.
[1] The sole question on this appeal is whether the trial court was justified in sustaining plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground that the court refused to permit plaintiff's counsel to question the jurors on voir dire examination as to their religious affiliations. It is stipulated that only that part of the proceedings had at the trial pertaining to the interrogation of the jury on voir dire, which presented the point in dispute, need be presented to this court. The record shows the following to have occurred:
It will be noted that no exception was taken to the ruling of the court. Neither did the attorney for plaintiff attempt to state any reason as to why the query intended to be made was material or pertinent. The ruling of the court was therefore entirely proper. In 35 Corpus Juris, 392, section 438, it is said: "... a juror may be fully examined and asked any questions which are pertinent to show the existence of bias or prejudice, and may be examined as to any bias with regard to the nature of the case or the subject matter of the litigation as well as with regard to the parties personally."
[2] There are some questions that are always pertinent. For example, relationship of jurors to the parties to the suit, and interest in the result of the trial. Other questions, such as political or religious affiliation of the jurors, or whether they belong to a union, etc., only become pertinent under peculiar circumstances. Before such questions should be permitted to be asked the trial court should, unless the nature of the case itself discloses the facts rendering the question pertinent, be made acquainted with the facts and the attorney should state his reasons for desiring to ask such questions, otherwise the inquiry should not be permitted. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 39 L. Ed. 1033, a case involving an election offense, that questions as to political affiliations of the jurors were properly excluded in absence of any special reason of any such inquiry. In People v. Hinshaw, 40 Cal. App. 672, 182 Pac. 59, the California court ruled that an attorney, desiring to ask questions on voir dire examination as to whether the jurors would take instructions from the court or from other jurors, should have stated to the trial court his reasons for asking the questions and having failed to do so he could not make the ruling the basis of error. In State v. McGee, 336 Mo. 1082, 83 S.W. (2d) 98, l.c. 106 (15-17), this court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Austin
...475 U.S. 1048, 106 S.Ct. 1268, 89 L.Ed.2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C.Ct.App.1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610, 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala. Crim.App.2000). Indeed, As to religion, our jury selection system was......
-
Casarez v. State
...the Court of Appeals held the pertinent question was whether the individual veniremembers harbored any bias. Finally, in Rose v. Sheedy, 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Mo.1939), the Missouri Supreme Court held religious affiliations constitute neither a qualification nor a disqualification for jury ser......
-
State v. Austin
...cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048, 106 S. Ct. 1268 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C. Ct. App. 1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (Mo. 1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, No. CR-95-0205 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 25, 2000). Indeed, As to religion, our jury selection syste......
-
State v. Salinas, No. M2004-00811-CCA-R3-CD (TN 7/18/2005)
...1048, 106 S. Ct. 1268, 89 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1986); Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C. Ct. App. 1977); Rose v. Sheedy, 345 Mo. 610, 134 S.W.2d 18, 19 (1939); Corey Schriod Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). Indeed, As to religion, our jury selection system was ......