Opinion ID: 1776549
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial-change of venue?

Text: Miles attempts to come in the back door by arguing that a change of venue and mistrial should have occurred after the fact  the trial. First, the record is devoid of any motion to change venue. First, Miles would have us overlook the fact that she selected venue of the action. Second, by including Burroughs Welcome Company, a foreign corporation, as an original party defendant, the suit could have been filed and maintained in Hinds County. Third, Miles cites an incident which occurred with a juror who allegedly expressed some of his opinions during the trial at a service station. The juror and the witness to the incident were questioned by the judge in chambers concerning the comments made. Upon the conclusion of the interview of the juror and witness, the court engaged in the following colloquy with counsel for Miles: THE COURT: ... My personal opinion is Mr. Wells should not be asked to served on the jury any further, but I'm going to leave it to you. We've got one alternate juror ... MR. MAUGHAN: (Counsel for Miles) Your Honor, we think that anything that was said may have been embellished a little bit and we think the man is a man of integrity... . We think if the Judge would admonish the jury again this is not to be decided on any friendship or pressure because you may have to face these doctors, but on the facts, then we would go with this juror. THE COURT: In other words you have no objection to the juror, Samuel Wells, continuing to hear the case? MR. MAUGHAN: I think the man told the truth here.... Wells was permitted to remain on the jury panel. The record shows without contradiction that when the trial court offered to replace the over-speaking juror, Miles agreed that the juror should remain on the panel. Having made this decision, Miles waived any right to subsequently complain. In sum, the record does not reflect an abuse in the trial court's discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial and change of venue under the established facts in this case. See Maxwell v. Illinois Central Gulf RR, 513 So.2d 901 (Miss. 1987).