Opinion ID: 1924529
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the trial court made proper inquiry into the issue of juror misconduct.

Text: ¶ 37. CMF argues that during the trial, a situation arose which led to questions about the truthfulness of a prospective juror during voir dire. During voir dire, the entire panel was asked whether they knew any of the witnesses in the case, including a potential witness for the plaintiffs, Robert Luke (Luke). No one responded affirmatively. However, while counsel for both parties were in chambers selecting the jury, a paralegal for CMF's counsel allegedly saw a potential juror, Puckett, greet and shake hands with Luke. Puckett was ultimately selected as a juror in this case. ¶ 38. The court conducted an examination of Juror Puckett with regard to the alleged hand shaking. Puckett denied shaking hands with Luke or having any personal knowledge of Luke that would have required him to affirmatively answer any voir dire questions presented to him. However, when asked by CMF, Puckett admitted that he knew of Luke because he knew Luke's mother and recognized him in the courtroom. ¶ 39. CMF contends that the trial court erred by not removing Juror Puckett from the panel. In addition, it maintains that the trial court erred by not conducting the entire examination of Juror Puckett. Such failure placed counsel for CMF in the position of conducting the remainder of the examination, which cast CMF in a bad light in the eyes of the jury and may have offended Juror Puckett. CMF believes that the prejudice suffered was clear, given the unanimous verdict for Hailey. ¶ 40. On the issue of juror misconduct, this Court held in Fleming v. State, 687 So.2d 146, 148 (Miss.1997), that: [f]ailure to respond to a question in voir dire does not warrant a new trial unless the trial court determines that the question propounded to the juror was 1) relevant to the voir dire examination, 2) unambiguous, and 3) such that the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. If the trial court answers these three inquiries in the affirmative, then the court determines whether prejudice to the defendant could be inferred. If so, then a new trial is ordered. ¶ 41. The record is clear, from the questions posed, that the juror does not know Luke, which constitutes a failure to meet the Fleming test. The record also shows that CMF's attorney's paralegal did not know who the juror had contact with. Finally, assuming that CMF could satisfy the elements of the foregoing test relative to this tenuous juror misconduct issue, the Court in Fleming held that if a juror's response had created a peremptory challenge which did not rise to the dignity of a challenge for cause, our courts have greater discretion to determine whether a new trial is warranted. ¶ 42. In any event, Hailey argues that the testimony of the juror in question and CMF's paralegal does not rise to the level of a challenge for cause. We agree. There is not enough proof in the record to support CMF's allegation of juror misconduct. The fact that the potential problem witness did not testify and was not listed as a witness, confirms our conclusion that there is no ground for reversal based on this assignment of error.