Opinion ID: 2242785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Rannal Bankhead

Text: The record indicates that Dr. Mullin's counsel excused venireperson Bankhead because Bankhead seemed overtly hostile to Dr. McPartlin's counsel. The trial court absolutely agreed, stating that Bankhead's manner of answering questions indicated he was real angry and hostile. The very procedures governing peremptory challenges are designed to afford both parties a fair opportunity to detect bias or hostility on the part of prospective jurors. See People v. Moss, 108 Ill.2d 270, 276, 91 Ill.Dec. 617, 483 N.E.2d 1252 (1985). Accordingly, a venireperson's demeanor which evinces a hostile attitude may constitute a legitimate race-neutral reason for excluding that individual. Munson, 171 Ill.2d at 179-82, 215 Ill.Dec. 125, 662 N.E.2d 1265; People v. Taylor, 171 Ill.App.3d 261, 267-69, 121 Ill.Dec. 168, 524 N.E.2d 1216 (1988). Further, confirmation in the record that the trial court observed the same demeanor as the challenger lends credence to a purported race-neutral explanation. Munson, 171 Ill.2d at 182, 215 Ill.Dec. 125, 662 N.E.2d 1265. We find, therefore, that the trial court's ruling that counsel's proffered reason for excluding Bankhead was race-neutral was not clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff also argues that she was unfairly prejudiced at trial by (1) improper evidence and argument by defendants as to contributory negligence and mitigation of damages; (2) improper restriction of plaintiff's cross-examination of Dr. McPartlin; (3) defendant's violation of a motion in limine barring evidence of the prior trial in this matter; (4) improper use of leading questions in the examination of Dr. McPartlin by his own counsel; and (5) the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors. We consider each claimed error in turn.