Opinion ID: 1833768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial where a juror failed to respond to a question during voir dire.

Text: ¶ 12. During voir dire Everett, counsel for Buckley, asked the potential petit jurors the following question: Are any of youhave any of you been a victim of a crime? Any member of yourhas a crime been committed against you, or any member of your family? Are you or any member of your family, related to any police or law enforcement officer, Sheriff, or what have you? Two jurors raised their hands and were acknowledged or questioned by Everett. Everett used a peremptory challenge on Carey Smith, whose brother-in-law was a highway patrolman, and excused for cause Stanley Wash, who was a Mississippi narcotics agent. ¶ 13. After sentencing, Buckley filed a motion for a new trial claiming that Katherine Parker (Parker), a juror whose daughter was a dispatcher for the Newton Police Department on Saturday nights, did not respond to the above referenced question during voir dire. The trial judge, after hearing argument and testimony, found that the question posed by Everett was ambiguous as applied to Parker. The judge concluded that the common meaning given to a police dispatcher does not equate with police officer, that a dispatcher's duties and powers are distinct from a police officers, and that Everett should have been more thorough in his examination. ¶ 14. This Court has previously stated that: Following a jury's verdict, where a party shows that a juror withheld substantial information or misrepresented material facts, and where a full and complete response would have provided a valid basis for challenge for cause, the trial court must grant a new trial, and, failing that, we must reverse on appeal. We presume prejudice. Where, as a matter of common experience, a full and correct response would have provided the basis for a peremptory challenge, not rising to the dignity of a challenge for cause, our courts have greater discretion, although a discretion that should always be exercised against the backdrop of our duty to secure to each party trial before a fair and impartial jury. T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason, 614 So.2d 942, 949 (Miss.1992). As there is no claim that Parker could be challenged for cause, this Court employs the abuse of discretion standard. ¶ 15. The judge correctly relied upon Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss.1978) which governs judicial inquiry in such instances: 1) whether the question was relevant to the voir dire examination 2) whether the question was unambiguous 3) whether the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. The pertinent part of Everett's question Are you or any member of your family, related to any police or law enforcement officer, Sheriff, or what have you?was found to be ambiguous as it related to Parker, failing the Odom test. In this ruling, the judge did not abuse his discretion. ¶ 16. Buckley cites two cases to support his position that his question to Parker was unambiguous, Laney v. State, 421 So.2d 1216 (Miss.1982) and Cason, 614 So.2d at 949. In each case cited, however, the ambiguity prong of the Odom test was essentially a non-issue as the proper relationship between the questions asked and the knowledge of the jurors were clearly evident. ¶ 17. In Laney the following questions were broached: Is there anybody on the panel related by blood or marriage to any present law enforcement person in Montgomery County, or anywhere else?; and, Is there any other member related by blood or marriage to any law enforcement officer or has any member ever been employed by law enforcement, at any time in the past? Laney, 421 So.2d at 1217. On motion for a new trial, it was learned that the juror in question had one brother who had been a Deputy Sheriff and the Sheriff of Montgomery County for twenty years prior to the trial, and had been employed by the State Fire Marshal's office until a short time before the trial; that another brother was, at the time of trial, an investigator with the Mississippi Highway Patrol; and that her nephew was currently serving as a Mississippi highway patrolman. Id. ¶ 18. In Cason, the jury was asked whether anyone had spoken with them about the merits of the case. At a post-trial hearing the juror in question admitted that she had waited on the plaintiff at the shop where the juror worked and that the two had discussed the plaintiff's voice problems, a principal contention at trial. The majority in Cason did not address the ambiguity issue as it was apparent from the question asked and the knowledge of the juror that there was no ambiguity issue. Cason, 614 So.2d at 949. ¶ 19. The question asked by Everett Are you or any member of your family, related to any police or law enforcement officer, Sheriff, or what have you?is unambiguous as it relates to Sheriffs, police or law enforcement officers. Parker, however, was not related to any officer. Parker's daughter was a part-time dispatcher for the Newton Police Department. Given the common meaning of words and the duties associated with law enforcement officers versus dispatchers, it is clear that the question posed by Everett as it related to Parker was ambiguous. Furthermore, the or what have you portion of the question was a catch-all provision which does not cure the ambiguous nature of the question as it relates to Parker. Tolbert v. State, 511 So.2d 1368, 1377 (Miss.1987). The judge did not abuse his discretion in finding the question to be ambiguous. ¶ 20. While one might argue that, regardless of the Odom test, prejudice against the defendant can be inferred from Parker's participation on the jury. Although a stretch, logic lends itself to the inference that Parker's daughter would be privy to certain information about the case which she might pass on to Parker, who in turn would pass such information on to the jury; or perhaps Parker had an unrevealed bias against criminal defendant Buckley due to her daughter's employment as a dispatcher with the Newton Police Department. Such speculation, however, is not the province of the Court in this instance. Whether prejudice can be inferred in the jury selection process due to Parker's silence is an inquiry this Court makes only after the Odom factors have been answered in the affirmative. Odom, 355 So.2d at 1383; see generally Cason, 614 So.2d at 949.