Opinion ID: 1816637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the foreman of the jury was a long-term private practice client of the county prosecutor.

Text: The defendant asserts in his second assignment of error that a private practice client of the county prosecutor was improperly allowed to serve on the jury. However, the record does not reflect that the prosecuting attorney or his firm presently or regularly represented the juror in question. Moreover, the record does not indicate that the juror or any member of his immediate family paid the attorney or his firm any regular monthly or annual salary for legal work. The trial judge found that the voir dire questioning only related to present representation, not past, and that the juror was not guilty of failure to respond to any question of which he had substantial knowledge. See Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss. 1978) (setting forth the appropriate analysis to follow when a prospective juror fails to respond to a voir dire question to determine prejudice to defendant). Further, the trial court found through its own questioning that the juror was fair and impartial. Since juror impartiality and fairness is a judicial question to be determined on a case by case basis, the court's judgment will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Walls v. State, 371 So.2d 411, 413 (Miss. 1979); Odom v. State, 355 So.2d at 383. No evidence was presented indicating that the trial court was wrong in its determination, and, therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.