Opinion ID: 3162773
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NRH Asserts An Irregularity In The Proceedings Prevented It From Having A Fair Trial.

Text: ¶37 The last issue concerns the proper time to object to perceived judicial bias discovered during the course of a trial. Although for purposes of Rule 1.180 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, 12 O.S. 2011, Ch. 15, App. 1, we may address only issues properly preserved for appeal, the issue here concerns whether or not this issue has been properly preserved for appeal and it does not appear to have been previously addressed by this Court. ¶38 NRH asserts it is entitled to a new trial because there were irregularities in the proceedings. 15 NRH contends it was prevented from having a fair trial due to the judge's perceived bias and strong feelings about this intersection. On the first day of the two day trial the judge stated [b]oy that is an evil intersection. I prosecuted a negligent homicide at that intersection years and years and years ago. 16 NRH argues it would not have agreed to a bench trial had it known of the judge's predetermined opinion of this intersection. Ms. Gowens argues NRH never objected to the judge's comments at trial and instead waited until a verdict was handed down nearly 5 months later to object in their motion for new trial. She asserts NRH waived its objection because it did not raise it at trial. NRH counters that it properly preserved the issue for appeal by asserting it in its motion for new trial. ¶39 Both parties cite an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals opinion as persuasive authority. In C.R.B. v. State, the court held that parties to a case are entitled to a hearing before an impartial judge and when bias exists the general means to secure relief is through a writ of mandamus compelling a judge to disqualify. 1978 OK CR 22, ¶2, 575 P.2d 636. The court said, however, this approach can be impossible if judicial bias only becomes apparent at the hearing and in which case the proper action is to object and move for a mistrial. C.R.B., 1978 OK CR 22at ¶2. If the motion is denied then the error is preserved for appeal. Id. Ms. Gowens asserts C.R.B. requires one to object and move for a mistrial during the trial and not in a later post-trial motion. NRH asserts C.R.B. does not positively require the objection be made at trial. ¶40 We note other jurisdictions require a claim of judicial bias be raised in the trial court or else the issue is not preserved. 17 Our jurisprudence has clearly found it necessary to make an objection at trial in order to preserve an issue for appeal when asserting other grounds for granting a new trial. 18 This Court has previously set the rule for objecting to juror bias and misconduct. In Harris v. Boggess , 1927 OK 80, 255 P. 685, plaintiff appealed the trial court's decision overruling his motion for new trial which had been based on alleged juror bias during the progress of the trial. Defendant asserted plaintiff knew of the juror's statements against him prior to the close of the trial and should have brought it to the attention of the trial court. Harris, 1927 OK 80 at ¶9. Defendant insisted the plaintiff should not be allowed after knowledge of bias to remain silent and speculate on the verdict of the jury and after an adverse verdict raise the objection in a motion for new trial. Id. Because the motion for new trial was ultimately decided in favor of defendant this Court did not disturb it. Id. However, a rule was set in this Court's syllabus stating if alleged misconduct of a juror is discovered prior to the close of the trial it is the duty of the complaining party to call it to the attention of the trial court by proper motion; if it is discovered after the close of the trial then it is appropriate to present the claim in a motion for new trial. 19 ¶41 We have held similarly when dealing with alleged misconduct of counsel. In Burns v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 1962 OK 91, 372 P.2d 36, plaintiff's counsel alleged misconduct of the prevailing party in a motion for new trial. The misconduct stemmed from defendant's closing statements. We noted the plaintiff did not ask the court to declare a mistrial. Burns , 1962 OK 91 at ¶7. In this Court's syllabus we determined the following: Prejudicial remarks of counsel in argument to the jury are not ordinarily available as a ground for reversal unless objected to and exception taken at the time such remarks are made, and the remarks, as well as the objection and exception thereto, must be shown in the record of the proceedings of the trial. The objection is too late if made for the first time in motion for new trial. Burns, 1962 OK 91 at ¶0 (syllabus). ¶42 A party who fails to preserve an issue for appeal by objecting in a timely manner to testimony or issues before the trial court, or to instructions given, or by neglecting to offer a proper instruction has waived review of that issue in the appellate courts. Bane v. Anderson, Bryant & Co., 1989 OK 140, ¶24, 786 P.2d 1230. No argument has been presented to this Court indicating why an objection to judicial bias discovered at trial should be treated differently from any other objection. We see no reason to treat it so. NRH was aware of the comments on the first day of a two day trial and should have timely objected and moved for a mistrial rather than wait to assert bias for the first time in a motion for new trial.