Rozbicki v. Huybrechts

• Decision Date: 16 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 14088,14088
• Citation: 589 A.2d 363,218 Conn. 386
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Zbigniew S. ROZBICKI v. Helen HUYBRECHTS.

Page 363

589 A.2d 363

218 Conn. 386

Zbigniew S. ROZBICKI v. Helen HUYBRECHTS.

No. 14088.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 21, 1991.

Decided April 16, 1991.

Paul W. Summers, Harwinton, with whom, on the brief, was John P. Febbroriello, Torrington, for appellant (defendant).

Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom was Karen L. Murdoch, Legal Intern, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, GLASS and BORDEN, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

This appeal concerns the state constitutional right of a party to a civil action to be present during the voir dire of potential jurors. The plaintiff, Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, who is a practicing attorney, brought an action to recover legal fees allegedly due from the defendant, Helen Huybrechts. The defendant counterclaimed for loss of profits arising out of the sale of her residence to the plaintiff and for recovery of costs arising out of a related foreclosure action. After a court order by the trial court, Moraghan, J., setting a date for jury selection to commence, the plaintiff moved for a continuance because of his professional responsibilities elsewhere in the state. Upon denial of the plaintiff's motion by the trial court, Dranginis, J., jury selection went forward in his absence, although the trial itself was continued until he could be present. The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defendant on both the complaint and the counterclaim and awarded the defendant $8020.60 in damages. The trial court, Moraghan, J., denied the plaintiff's motions to set aside the verdict and rendered judgment for the defendant.

On the plaintiff's appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial on the ground that the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a continuance had violated the plaintiff's state constitutional right to be present for voir dire. Rozbicki v. Huybrechts, 22 Conn.App. 131, 136, 576 A.2d 178 (1990). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court; Rozbicki v. Huybrechts, 216 Conn. 812, 580 A.2d 59 (1990); limited to the following issue: "Does the plaintiff's absence from voir dire in a civil trial require a new trial absent a showing of prejudice?" In the circumstances of this case, because the burden of disproving prejudice must be borne by the defendant and that burden has not been met, we conclude that a new trial is required. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The certified issue arises out of the following procedural facts, which are not in dispute. On December 14, 1988, the trial court, Moraghan, J., ordered that jury selection for the plaintiff's lawsuit begin on January 3, 1989. On December 16, 1988, the plaintiff, asserting a state constitutional right to be present for voir dire; Conn. Const., art. 1, § 19; moved to postpone jury selection until he could be present.

When the motion for continuance was argued, on January 3, 1989, the plaintiff's counsel informed the trial court, Dranginis, J., that the plaintiff's absence on that date was involuntary because the plaintiff was representing a client on trial in West Hartford in a proceeding that he had been ordered to begin several weeks earlier. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaintiff wished to be present for voir dire because he had lived in the Litchfield area most of his life, had practiced law there for twenty years, and might well recognize among prospective jurors someone with whom he had had previous adversarial dealings of some sort. The trial court acknowledged that the plaintiff had a constitutional right to be present, but concluded that he had waived it. After completion of jury selection in the plaintiff's absence, the trial court continued further proceedings to enable the plaintiff to be present for trial. At the trial, which the plaintiff attended, he did not object to any of the jurors who had been selected.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a defendant's verdict on both the complaint and the counterclaim, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motions to set aside the verdict. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that: (1) the plaintiff's right to a jury trial under article first, § 19 of the constitution of Connecticut encompassed the right to be present during voir dire; (2) the plaintiff's absence, in obedience to a prior express judicial order to represent a client elsewhere in the state, was involuntary and thus did not constitute a waiver of that right; (3) the trial court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for a continuance violated his right to be present; and (4) the plaintiff was therefore entitled to a new trial. Rozbicki v. Huybrechts, supra, 22 Conn.App. at 133-36, 576 A.2d 178.

On appeal to this court, after our grant of certification, the principal issue is the relationship between the right to be present at voir dire and the proof of prejudice attendant to a violation of that right. The defendant maintains, contrary to the view of the Appellate Court, that the plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial without demonstrating how his absence during voir dire prejudiced the outcome of the trial that he attended. Such a burden of proving prejudice is appropriate, according to the defendant, because the Appellate Court was mistaken in concluding that the plaintiff's right to be present was constitutional in nature. The defendant argues that Connecticut's constitution extends to civil litigants only the right to question prospective jurors by counsel, not the right to be present for jury selection. The plaintiff counters that this court should not examine the nature of the right violated because that issue is beyond the scope of the certified question. Since the Appellate Court determined that the right to be present is constitutional in origin, the plaintiff further maintains that the burden should be placed upon the defendant, who is seeking to uphold the jury's verdict, to prove that the plaintiff was not prejudiced by his absence. We agree with the defendant that the issue of the burden of proof concerning prejudice cannot be decided without a determination of the nature of the underlying right that is sought to be vindicated, but we agree with the plaintiff that the right to be present for jury selection is a constitutional right, and accordingly that the burden of disproving prejudice must be assigned to the defendant, as the Appellate Court held.

I

Our analysis therefore begins with an examination of the nature of a party's right to be present at jury selection. That right has its origin in the text of article first, § 19 of the constitution of Connecticut. As amended by article four of the amendments to the constitution, adopted in 1972, the section provides: "The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, the number of such jurors, which shall not be less than six, to be established by law; but no person shall, for a capital offense, be tried by a jury of less than twelve without his consent. In all civil and criminal actions tried by a jury, the parties shall have the right to challenge jurors peremptorily, the number of such challenges to be established by law. The right to question each juror individually by counsel shall be inviolate."

This court has long recognized that a party's constitutional right to a civil jury trial encompasses the right to be present in the court during all phases of the trial, including proceedings prior to the trial on the merits of the case. We have assumed that a plaintiff in a personal injury action has a personal right to be present during voir dire, so long as he does not "disturb the orderly business of the court." Antel v. Poli, 100 Conn. 64, 69, 123 A. 272 (1923). We have held that a party to a fraud action has a right to be present at a deposition, and not merely to be represented by counsel. Anderson v. Snyder, 91 Conn. 404, 408, 99 A. 1032 (1917). We have explained the importance of the personal presence of the party by noting that "[i]n many cases, the cross-examining attorney cannot anticipate, no matter how thorough his preparation, the developments in the examination of a witness. He cannot know all that his client knows. Oftentimes it is essential for the proper presentation of the case to have the client at hand ready to prompt the cross-examiner and to respond to his inquiries." Id.

These cases demonstrate the significant role that a party may play at voir dire. One of the principal purposes of voir dire is the discovery of interests, such as family ties, employment relationships, or financial interests, that may predispose a prospective juror to decide a case on legally irrelevant grounds. See, e.g., McCarten v. Connecticut Co., 103 Conn. 537, 542-44, 131 A. 505 (1925); Quinebaug Bank v. Leavens, 20 Conn. 87, 89 (1849). As the Appellate Court observed, it is not unlikely that a party may recognize, during voir dire, a potentially prejudicial relationship that might pass unnoticed by his counsel. Rozbicki v. Huybrechts, supra, 22 Conn.App. at 135, 576 A.2d 178.

The history of the 1972 amendment of article first, § 19 supports the continuing validity of our earlier judicial determination that the jury trial provision of the state constitution guarantees a civil litigant the right to be present during voir dire. Prior to the adoption of the fourth amendment to Connecticut's constitution, article first, § 19 provided only that "[t]he right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." In 1971, in response to the increasing congestion of court dockets and mounting court costs, the legislature proposed a constitutional amendment to permit mandatory six-person juries in place of twelve-person juries in certain circumstances. See 14 H.R.Proc., Pt. 5, 1971 Sess., pp. 2366-70; 14 S.Proc., Pt. 5, 1971 Sess., pp. 1984-88. In order to preserve what the legislature perceived as the...