Opinion ID: 1749324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clarity of Question

Text: A member of the venire has a duty during voir dire examination to give full, fair, and truthful answers to all questions asked of him or her specifically, as well as those asked of the panel generally, so that his or her qualifications may be determined and challenges may be posed. Williams by Wilford v. Barnes Hosp., 736 S.W.2d 33, 36 (Mo. banc 1987). The duty to disclose is triggered only after a clear question has been asked. Brines by Harlan v. Cibis, 882 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Mo. banc 1994). The question asked during voir dire must clearly and unambiguously trigger the juror's obligation to disclose the information requested. See Carlisle, 853 S.W.2d at 916. In reviewing the grant of a motion for new trial based on a claim of juror nondisclosure, this Court first must determine, from an objective standpoint, whether the question asked of the prospective juror was sufficiently clear in context to have elicited the undisclosed information. See Brines , 882 S.W.2d at 139. Whether a question was sufficiently clear is a threshold issue that this Court reviews de novo. Keltner v. K-Mart Corp., 42 S.W.3d 716, 723 (Mo.App.2001). During voir dire, Johnson's counsel asked the venire members, Now not including family law, has anyone ever been a plaintiff or a defendant in a lawsuit before? Several venire members disclosed prior involvement in lawsuits. One venire member mentioned her involvement as a defendant in a personal injury suit against a limited liability company she owned with her husband. Another venire member disclosed a dog-bite lawsuit when, as a child, her parents sued the dog owner on her behalf. Numerous other venire members disclosed lawsuits in which they acted as a plaintiff or a defendant. Among the various disclosures were a class action lawsuit, a property dispute, a car accident case, and a discrimination lawsuit. After each individual disclosure, counsel merely asked the responding venire members whether the experience would affect his or her ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case. Counsel did not delve further into each venire member's response. Upon eliciting all of the preceding disclosures, counsel asked, Now did I miss anyone here? I just want to make sure. No other people that have been, not including family law, a plaintiff or a defendant on any case? Let the record reflect that I see no additional hands. Juror Mims remained silent throughout this line of questioning. Defendants contend that the inquiry at issue was unclear because the phrase now not including family law renders the question ambiguous and confusing. The issue is whether a reasonable venire member would have understood what counsel intended. McBurney v. Cameron, 248 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Mo.App. 2008). The duty of counsel to show that the question was clear is not satisfied when some venire members could reasonably think one thing, and some other venire members could reasonably think the opposite. Id. at 46. The record must demonstrate that, from an objective standpoint, the question was clear in the total applicable context. Id. Here, the total applicable context does not render counsel's inquiry unclear. The question generally asked about prior litigation experience and specifically excluded any litigation involving domestic relations. In cases where counsel's question during voir dire regarding prior litigation experience has been deemed unclear, a general question is typically followed or surrounded by more detailed questions honing in on specific lawsuits. Id. For example, in Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines, Inc., the court found that, taken in context, counsel's question asking venire members to disclose claims made for personal injuries or monetary damages did not clearly require disclosure of a property-damage lawsuit in which a venire member was a plaintiff. 177 S.W.3d 820, 842-43 (Mo.App.2005). Additionally, in McBurney v. Cameron , the court determined that, in context, counsel's general question regarding prior litigation experience was extensively surrounded with questions about personal injury claims and litigation. 248 S.W.3d at 45. The majority in McBurney could not isolate the general question regarding prior litigation experience from its surrounding context and, therefore, could not find that a reasonable venire member would have understood counsel's general question about prior litigation experience was intended to solicit information about all kinds of claims and cases. Id. at 46. Here, the inquiry into prior litigation experience is similar to counsel's questioning in Massey v. Carter, in which counsel asked generally, Have any of you ever filed a lawsuit? 238 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Mo. App.2007). After a venire member mentioned filing a claim as a homeowner, and after finding out the venire member was satisfied with how things were resolved in that case, counsel asked, Have any of you ever been sued by anyone? Id. The juror in question failed to disclose he had been sued five times in collection lawsuits. Id. at 200. The court in Massey pointed out that, after the question about having been sued by anyone, there were no follow-up questions honing in on a specific kind of lawsuit, as there was in Payne. Id. at 201. The court determined that counsel's question remained a general question. Id. Applying the objective standard of clarity developed in prior case law, this Court agrees with the trial court's assessment that the voir dire question was reasonably clear and triggered Mims' duty to disclose the multiple debt collection lawsuits against her and the suit for personal injuries. The question remained a general question and was not rendered confusing or ambiguous by surrounding context. Counsel's question clearly indicated that he was not interested in disclosure of family law disputes. From the standpoint of a reasonable lay person, debt collection lawsuits and suits for personal injuries are not excluded by counsel's general inquiry into prior litigation experiences. With the question so narrowed, counsel's question unequivocally triggered Mims' duty to disclose. However, Mims remained silent. Failure to answer a clear question is considered a nondisclosure. Id. Accordingly, the trial court correctly determined that counsel's question was reasonably clear.