Title: Bethea v. Springhill Memorial Hosp.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

833 So. 2d 1 (2002)
Tristan BETHEA et al.
v.
SPRINGHILL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.
Springhill Memorial Hospital
v.
Tristan Bethea et al.
1001715 and 1001814.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 19, 2002.
*2 Peter F. Burns, of Burns, Cunningham, Mackey & Fillingim, P.C., Mobile; and G. Daniel Evans, Birmingham, for appellants/cross-appellees Tristan Bethea et al.
Philip H. Partridge, D. Scott Wright, and Thomas H. Nolan, Jr., of Brown, Hudgens, P.C., Mobile, for appellee/cross-appellant Springhill Memorial Hospital.
PER CURIAM.
Tristan Bethea and her mother, Angie Bethea (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Betheas"),[1] seek review of a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of Springhill Memorial Hospital (hereinafter "Springhill"). The Betheas argue that they are entitled to a new trial because, they say, (1) the trial court improperly denied their challenge for cause during jury selection, and (2) the jurors relied on extraneous information in reaching their decision. Springhill filed a cross-appeal, arguing that a judgment as a matter of law should have been entered in Springhill's favor on Angela Bethea's individual claim for mental-anguish damages. We affirm the trial court's judgment for Springhill and dismiss Springhill's cross-appeal.
The Betheas sued Springhill, among others, for damages based on injuries allegedly sustained by Tristan during Tristan's birth at Springhill. Specifically, the Betheas alleged that Tristan suffered brain damage during the delivery process as a result of the improper use of the drug Oxytocin (which was also referred to as Pitocin at trial).[2]
During jury selection, the following colloquy took place between the court and a prospective juror, L.A.C.:
Subsequently, counsel for the Betheas questioned each prospective juror extensively in an attempt to identify any possible partiality. Counsel for the Betheas did question L.A.C., but not regarding what effect, if any, her acquaintances with Mr. Hudgens and Mr. St. Clair might have on her ability to render a fair decision. Counsel for the Betheas concluded their examination with the following question:
No prospective juror answered this question affirmatively.
Counsel for the Betheas requested that L.A.C. be struck from the jury for cause; the trial judge denied this request:
Counsel for the Betheas eventually used a peremptory strike to remove L.A.C. from the venire.
After a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Springhill. Subsequently, the Betheas filed a motion for a new trial based upon, among other things, their assertion that the jury had improperly considered extraneous material during deliberations. In support of this new assertion, the Betheas filed an affidavit of Vera Milhouse, who served as one of the jurors. Ms. Milhouse's affidavit stated:
Springhill filed a motion to strike Milhouse's affidavit.[5] The trial court granted *5 Springhill's motion to strike and denied the Betheas' motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.
The Betheas assert that they are entitled to a new trial based upon the trial court's refusal to strike L.A.C. for cause. Specifically, the Betheas argue that L.A.C.'s response to the question whether she could be fair and impartial"I would like to think so"was equivocal and therefore that the Betheas are entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to assure L.A.C.'s impartiality. We disagree.
We recently discussed our standards governing the situations involving a trial court's ruling on challenges for cause in Dailey v. State, 828 So. 2d 340 (Ala. 2001):
"794 So. 2d  at 414.
Dailey v. State, 828 So. 2d  at 342-44. Simply put, "[i]t is clear that in a civil case the party appealing from an adverse ruling on jury selection must prove not only that the trial court erred, but also that the error `has probably injuriously affected [that party's] substantial rights'" by forcing that party to try his case before a less-than-impartial jury. Evans v. State, 794 So. 2d 411, 413 (Ala.2000) (quoting Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P.).
The application of a "harmless-error" analysis to a trial court's refusal to strike a juror for cause is not new to this Court; in fact, such an analysis was adopted as early as 1909:
Turner v. State, 160 Ala. 55, 57, 49 So. 304, 305 (1909). However, in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219, 85 S. Ct. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court stated, in dicta, that "[t]he denial or impairment of the right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice."[6] (Emphasis added.) *7 Some decisions of this Court as well as of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reflect an adoption of this reasoning. See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3 (Ala. 1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge); Mason v. State, 536 So. 2d 127, 129 (Ala. Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain.)
As noted in the language quoted above from Dailey, this Court has returned to the "harmless-error" analysis articulated in the Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 108 S. Ct. 2273, 101 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1988), and Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 120 S. Ct. 774, 145 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2000), decisions. Because a defendant has no right to a perfect jury or a jury of his or her choice, but rather only to an "impartial" jury, see Ala. Const. 1901 § 6, we find the harmless-error analysis to be the proper method of assuring the recognition of that right.
In this instance, even if the Betheas could demonstrate that the trial court erred in not granting their request that L.A.C. be removed from the venire for cause (an issue we do not reach), they would need to show that its ruling somehow injured them by leaving them with a less-than-impartial jury. The Betheas do not proffer any evidence indicating that the jury that was eventually impaneled to hear this action was biased or partial. Therefore, the Betheas are not entitled to a new trial on this basis.[7]
The Betheas also assert that they are entitled to a new trial based on the information in Ms. Milhouse's affidavit regarding the alleged use of extraneous information by the jury. We disagree, and we hold that her affidavit was properly stricken by the trial court.
Rule 606(b), Ala. R. Evid., provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) With regard to the "extraneous prejudicial information" exception in Rule 606(b), we have recently noted that "`[t]he courts of this state have generally limited the scope of this exception to the visitation of a crime scene by a juror, the introduction of the definition of legal terms in the jury room, and [the reading of] concepts from general reference books.'" Lance, Inc. v. Ramanauskas, 731 So. 2d 1204, 1214 (Ala.1999) (quoting with approval the trial court's order, which cited Jordan v. Brantley, 589 So. 2d 680 (Ala.1991); Nichols v. Seaboard Coastline Ry., 341 So. 2d 671 (Ala.1976); and Dawson v. State, 710 So. 2d 467 (Ala.Crim. App.1996)).
*8 Even more recently, in Sharrief v. Gerlach, 798 So. 2d 646 (Ala.2001), we held that affidavits containing "accounts of some jurors' discussions during deliberations" did not fall under the extraneous-information exception, because the alleged information did not come to the jury from some external authority or through some "process outside the scope of the trial":
Sharrief, 798 So. 2d  at 652-53 (emphasis added).
In accordance with these decisions, we hold that in order for information to come within the extraneous-information exception to Rule 606(b), the information must come to the jurors from some external authority or through some process outside the scope of the trial, either (1) during the trial or the jury's deliberations or (2) before the trial but for the purpose of influencing the particular trial. In this case, we hold that the alleged prejudicial informationpersonal experiences with the use of Pitocin in induced laboris not extraneous information under the exception to Rule 606(b). The information did not come to the jury from some external authority or through some process outside *9 the scope of the trial, as defined above; rather, it arose solely from within the "debates and discussions" of the jurors during the process of deliberating. Therefore, the trial court did not err in striking the affidavit and in denying the Betheas' motion for a new trial.
Based on the above, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. Given our affirmance of the trial court's judgment, we need not address, and therefore dismiss, Springhill's cross-appeal.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, and STUART, JJ., concur.
JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and WOODALL, JJ., concur in the rationale in part and concur in the judgment.
JOHNSTONE, Justice (concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the judgment).
I concur in Part II (addressing the Betheas' claim that the jurors considered extraneous information) and in the judgment. I respectfully disagree, however, with the rationale on the challenge-for-cause issue in Part I.
In Part I, we are denying the plaintiffs relief on their claim that the trial court erred to reversal in denying their challenge for cause against prospective juror L.A.C. I concur in this result only because I conclude that the limited voir dire does not establish such a compelling ground for this challenge for cause that we could conclude that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the challenge.
I disagree, however, with the rationale that an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is not reversible in the absence of proof that the error has probably injuriously affected the challenging party's substantial rights "by forcing that party to try his case before a less-than-impartial jury." 833 So. 2d  at 6. The authorities cited by the main opinion in support of this holding are fundamentally distinguishable, and this holding is contrary to our precedents, which are unequivocally controlling. In each of Dailey v. State, 828 So. 2d 340 (Ala.2001), and Evans v. State, 794 So. 2d 411 (Ala.2000), cited as authority by the main opinion, the error consisted of granting the challenge for cause and eliminating the prospective juror from the venire. Erroneously removing an unbiased prospective juror, as in the two cited cases, is fundamentally different from erroneously keeping a biased prospective juror, who may then exert his bias on the case unless the victim of the bias spends a peremptory challenge to remove the biased prospective juror. The erroneous grant of the challenge for cause in each of these two cited cases did not relegate the aggrieved party to spending a peremptory challenge to remove a biased juror whom the trial court should have removed in response to a challenge for cause.
Our precedents are unequivocal that the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is reversible because it infringes the challenging party's right to use his peremptory challenges on other jurors who are not subject to challenge for cause. See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So. 2d 3, 7 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So. 2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d 1118 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723, 724 (Ala. 1987); Mason v. State, 536 So. 2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988); and Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).
"[T]he right [to peremptory challenges] is given in aid of the party's interest to secure a fair and impartial jury." Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 505, 69 *10 S. Ct. 201, 93 L. Ed. 187 (1948). Peremptory challenges are "one state-created means to the constitutional end of an impartial jury and a fair trial." Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 56, 112 S. Ct. 2348, 120 L. Ed. 2d 33 (1992). The Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, § 6, guarantees a defendant the right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed." Although neither the United States Constitution nor the Alabama Constitution requires peremptory challenges, the traditional right to peremptory challenges is "`one of the most important rights secured to the accused.'" Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 219, 85 S. Ct. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1965) (quoting Pointer v. United States, 151 U.S. 396, 408, 14 S. Ct. 410, 38 L. Ed. 208 (1894)). It is "`an arbitrary and capricious right, and it must be exercised with full freedom, or it fails of its full purpose.'" Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S.  at 219, 85 S. Ct. 824 (quoting Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011 (1892))(emphasis added).
380 U.S.  at 219-20, 85 S. Ct. 824 (citations omitted). Alabama law redresses the denial of a valid challenge for cause and the consequent relegation of the challenging party to the use of one of his peremptory challenges:
Mason v. State, 536 So. 2d  at 129, and Uptain v. State, 534 So. 2d  at 688. This rule is now state law, not dependent on the United States Constitution or on federal precedents.
Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 300, 102 S. Ct. 2442, 73 L. Ed. 2d 16 (1982). "State courts, in determining the scope of rights *11 guaranteed by their own constitutions, ... may, in fact, provide more protection for private rights than the United States Constitution requires." Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So. 2d 156, 170 (1991). In interpreting state laws, Alabama courts may "provide greater safeguards" to persons than are provided by federal constitutional law. Gilbreath v. Wallace, 292 Ala. 267, 271, 292 So. 2d 651, 654-55 (1974). Even though federal constitutional law may not require reversal for the erroneous denial of a valid challenge for cause, Alabama law does require reversal. Swain v. Alabama, Knop v. McCain, Ex parte Beam, Ex parte Rutledge, Uptain v. State, and Mason v. State, supra.
The erroneous denial of a challenge for cause relegates the challenging party to spending a peremptory challenge to remove the biased prospective juror and thereby deprives the challenging party of the opportunity to use that peremptory challenge for its purpose intended by law: the removal of a prospective juror not subject to a challenge for cause. The effect of the holding in the main opinion is that the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause is not reversible unless it causes a biased juror to remain on the jury after the challenging party has exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, including the one necessarily spent on removing the prospective juror who should have been removed by the trial court in response to the challenge for cause. If, however, the challenging party could prove that a remaining juror is biased, the challenging party would not need the spent peremptory challenge inasmuch as proof of such bias would constitute ground for another challenge for cause. Thus the burden imposed by the main opinion on the challenging party defies the very purpose of a peremptory challenge and essentially eliminates the peremptory challenge as an enforceable right.
HARWOOD, Justice (concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the judgment).
I would hold that no error occurred in the denial of the Betheas' challenge for cause of prospective juror L.A.C.; therefore, I would not reach the harmless-error issue. Accordingly, I concur in the result as to Part I of the main opinion. I concur fully in Part II of the opinion.
WOODALL, J. (concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the judgment).
I concur fully in Part II of the lead opinion. I concur in the result with respect to Part I of the lead opinion.
[1]  The plaintiffs in their notice of appeal styled this case "Tristan Bethea, a minor who sues by and through his father and next friend Herbert Bethea, and Herbert Bethea and Angela Bethea, individually v. Springhill Memorial Hospital." Herbert Bethea was voluntarily dismissed as a plaintiff and is not a party to this appeal.
[2]  Oxytocin is used to induce labor or to speed up delivery.
[3]  Mr. Hudgens is one of the attorneys representing Springhill.
[4]  Mr. St. Clair is Springhill's administrator and served as Springhill's representative at trial.
[5]  In support of its motion, Springhill filed affidavits of several other jurors, who all strongly disagreed with the assertions in Ms. Milhouse's affidavit. The affidavits filed by Springhill indicated (1) that a predeliberation vote was taken and that there were no votes for the Betheas (eight votes were for Springhill, and four jurors were undecided); (2) that while one of the jurors might have mentioned that she had had an induced labor, such personal experiences were not used in any way in making a final determination; (3) that there were several factors other than the use of Oxytocin that were determinative in the decision; and (4) that Ms. Milhouse never said anything about being persuaded or influenced by anything other than the evidence presented at trial.
[6]  In United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 317 n. 4, 120 S. Ct. 774, 145 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2000), the Court explicitly recognized that this statement from Swain not only was dicta, but also was founded upon legal premises that had since fallen out of favor:

"Relying on language in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S. Ct. 824, 13 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1965), as did the Court of Appeals in the decision below, Martinez-Salazar urges the Court to adopt a remedy of automatic reversal whenever a defendant's right to a certain number of peremptory challenges is substantially impaired. Brief for Respondent 29 (a `"denial or impairment of the right [to exercise peremptory challenges] is reversible error without a showing of prejudice"') (quoting Swain, 380 U.S., at 219, 85 S.Ct. 824). Because we find no impairment, we do not decide in this case what the appropriate remedy for a substantial impairment would be. We note, however, that the oft-quoted language in Swain was not only unnecessary to the decision in that casebecause Swain did not address any claim that a defendant had been denied a peremptory challengebut was founded on a series of our early cases decided long before the adoption of harmless-error review."
[7]  Given our holding, we need not, and do not, reach Springhill's argument that the Betheas' failure to question L.A.C. regarding her acquaintances with Mr. Hudgens and Mr. St. Clair waived their argument concerning the challenge for cause of potential juror L.A.C.