Opinion ID: 1206745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did the trial court prejudicially interfere with plaintiff's voir dire examination?

Text: Appellant complains that during his interrogation of a prospective juror it developed that the prospective juror's company had a service contract to deliver water to the defendant hospital. Whereupon the court made further inquiry, and later held that the juror did not meet any of the grounds for challenge for cause. The juror was excused by the plaintiff peremptorily. The voir dire was not reported but the following record was made out of the jury's presence at the close of plaintiffs opening statement (Tr. 36, 37, 38) Mr. Norman: ... The Court thereupon took over the examination and asked the prospective juror Arnold for on the other hand he felt the evidence will justify a verdict in favor of the hospital, would he return a verdict, and the prospective juror said yes and plaintiffs' counsel was instructed to move on to another subject. The Court: I think your question to him ... not your question ... my question to him was notwithstanding the fact that you might find it difficult, would you judge this evidence fairly and impartially and then your verdict you felt justified under it, and he said yes. It's correct. I did not permit him to be excused for cause because I'm of the opinion that not only are jurors eligible to remain with such an answer, but oftentimes make the better juror where they operate in spite of difficulty; that when they make a wiser and sounder verdict when they operate under such circumstances. Appellant claims that but for the court's questioning, the juror would have wound up disqualified for cause, and would not have required appellant to use a peremptory challenge that he needed for another juror. Pursuant to Rule 6, Rules for the District Court, 12 O.S. Ch. 2, App. the trial judge may outline the nature of the case, the issues of fact and law to be tried, and may then put to the jurors any questions regarding their qualifications to serve as jurors in the cause of the trial. We have said in McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Lorince: [17] A large discretion is vested in the trial court in determining the competency and qualifications of jurors and its action should not be disturbed unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly apparent. We find no such abuse of discretion in the court's asking if the juror could be fair and impartial, and upon receiving an affirmative reply, refusing to challenge for cause.