Opinion ID: 1164042
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: challenges of jurors for cause based on debtor-creditor relationship between jurors and j.c. penney

Text: A number of issues have been raised with reference to the selection of the juries. Challenges based on debtor-creditor relationship between jurors and J.C. Penney were overruled. Rule 47(c) [1] sets forth 13 different paragraphs containing grounds for challenges for cause. Many of those grounds involve value judgments on the part of the trial judge. Thus, subparagraph (2) pertains to bias, (3) deals with the person's state of mind which will prevent him from rendering a just verdict, and (4) refers to opinions or conscientious scruples which would improperly influence his verdict. It is well settled that challenges for cause under Rule 47(c), based on such grounds, are within the sound discretion of the trial judge, with which we are most reluctant to interfere. In Mitchell v. Knight, 394 P.2d 892, 897 (Alaska 1964), with reference to a challenge that a juror's state of mind would prevent him from rendering a just verdict, we stated: Civil Rule 47(c) places the determination of challenges for cause in the discretion of the trial judge. We shall interfere with the exercise of that discretion only in exceptional circumstances and to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [2] Other grounds for challenge set forth in Rule 47(c) are based solely on a determination as to whether certain factual situations exist. In those instances, once the facts are established there is no basis for discretion to be exercised by the trial judge. Thus, Rule 47(c)(1), (5), (6), (7) and (8) establish grounds for challenges for cause if it is shown that a person is not qualified by law to be a juror, has been subpoenaed as a witness in the case, that the person has already sat upon a trial of the same issue, that a person has served as a grand or petit juror in a criminal case based on the same transaction, or was previously called as a juror and excused at a previous trial of the same action. Similarly, other subsections specify grounds for challenges based on the existence of certain relationships (Rule 47(c)(9) and (10)). Where one of those relationships clearly exists, the trial judge must grant the challenge. In each trial one or more jurors who had outstanding balances on their J.C. Penney charge accounts were challenged for cause. Rule 47(c)(10) of the Civil Rules provides in pertinent part: The following are grounds for challenge for cause: . . . . (10) That the person is the guardian, ward, landlord, tenant, employer, employee, partner, client, principal, agent, debtor, creditor, or member of the family of a party or attorney. (Emphasis added.) Once facts have been presented establishing such a relationship between the juror and a party, the grounds for challenge have been met. Accordingly, the failure of the trial judge to grant the challenge for those jurors who had a debtor-creditor relationship with J.C. Penney was error. Moreover, we cannot say that this was harmless error within the rule of City of Kotzebue v. Ipalook, 462 P.2d 75 (Alaska 1969). [3] Malvo used all of her peremptory challenges under Civil Rule 47(d) and the denial of the challenges for cause under Civil Rule 47(c)(10) allowed those jurors to sit. Thus, we must remand for a new trial.