Opinion ID: 2026912
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Grossman

Text: Defendant argues that this court should follow Grossman, in which the First District interpreted Rule 431's civil counterpart, Rule 234, which contains identical language. Grossman was a wrongful-death case in which the decedent, a pedestrian suffering from cerebral palsy, was struck and killed by an automobile while he was crossing the street. Plaintiff, the special administrator of the decedent's estate, requested to participate in voir dire. The trial court explained that the parties could proffer written questions, but that the trial court would ask only those questions that it considered relevant. The trial court further stated that it alone would do the questioning. When defense counsel questioned this procedure and asked to directly question the jurors, the trial court responded that it knew that the supreme court rules said that attorneys shall participate, but explained that it allowed attorney participation through written questions. Plaintiff, for the record, joined in defense counsel's request for direct questioning by the attorneys. Grossman, 315 Ill.App.3d at 215-16, 247 Ill.Dec. 768, 732 N.E.2d 1100. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appealed. Plaintiff argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred when it ignored the plain language of Rule 234 and refused to allow the parties to participate in voir dire. The appellate court held that the rule was clear and unambiguous in that it used the word shall. The court noted that the term shall can sometimes be interpreted to mean must or may, but such an interpretation would not be proper here, given that the rule was amended to change may to shall. Grossman, 315 Ill. App.3d at 221, 247 Ill.Dec. 768, 732 N.E.2d 1100. The court stated that it was aware that the Second District had interpreted shall to be directory, but stated that it could not construe it as other than mandatory. Grossman, 315 Ill.App.3d at 221, 247 Ill.Dec. 768, 732 N.E.2d 1100. The court found that reversible error had occurred, because the trial court's voir dire was superficial and not sufficient to ensure that an unbiased jury was seated. Grossman, 315 Ill.App.3d at 221-22, 247 Ill.Dec. 768, 732 N.E.2d 1100. As we noted above, the Third District in the present case reviewed both Allen and Grossman and determined that Grossman was more persuasive and should be followed.