Court Opinion

ID: 9757091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:18:05.215931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:34.705238
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
dissenting:
The Majority holds that because of the potential prejudice of one juror, a general new trial is required. I disagree and, therefore, dissent.
Appellant contends that the potential prejudice of one juror resulted in a biased jury and an unfair trial. The potential prejudice alleged is that a member of the jury was the husband of a secretary in the law offices of plaintiff’s counsel. Pennsylvania case law is clear that a litigant is entitled to a fair trial which includes an impartial jury. However, Pennsylvania recognizes that jurors are not free from all prejudices: “We can only attempt to have them put aside those prejudices in the performance of their duty, the determination of guilt or innocence. We therefore do not expect a tabula rosa but merely a mind sufficiently conscious of its sworn responsibility and willing to attempt to reach a decision solely on the facts presented, assiduously avoiding the influences of irrelevant factors.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 452 Pa. 130, 136, 305 A.2d 5, 8 (1973).
In the instant case two factors lead me to conclude that we should affirm the lower court. Initially, I note that *466during voir dire, appellant directed general questions to the potential jurors. He never asked whether any juror had a relationship of any kind with the plaintiff or his counsel. Appellant did direct a question to the jurors which related to any bias they might have. The challenged juror did not indicate that he was predisposed to a particular result or that he had been influenced in any way. In Commonwealth v. Aljoe, 420 Pa. 198, 206, 216 A.2d 50, 54 (1966), the Supreme Court stated: “ ‘The time to challenge is before the juror is sworn; if not exercised then, the right is waived. That waiver may be relieved against when the party affected has been intentionally misled or deceived by the juror or the opposite party’ . . . . ‘It is the duty of parties to ascertain, by proper examination at the time the jury is impaneled, the existence of any reasons for objection to the jurors.’ ” In the instant case, there is no allegation or indication that the juror intended to deceive or failed to disclose information which would be prejudicial to appellant. Therefore, I conclude that his presence on the jury cannot be successfully challenged after the jury has been sworn.
Additionally, I believe that the juror’s relationship was too remote and inconsequential to require reversal. In Commonwealth v. Colon, 223 Pa.Super. 202, 299 A.2d 326 (1972), we held that a challenge for cause should be granted only:
“(1) when the potential juror has such a close relationship, be it familial, financial or situational, with parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses, that the court will presume the likelihood of prejudice; and (2) when the potential juror’s likelihood of prejudice is exhibited by his conduct and answers to questions at voir dire.” We also stated: “The categories of relationships which automatically call for removal should be limited because it is desirable to have a jury composed of persons with a variety of backgrounds and experiences.” Colon, supra 223 Pa.Super. at 206, 299 A.2d at 327. In Commonwealth v. Stewart, 449 Pa. 50, 295 A.2d 303 (1972), after the jury was sworn, defense counsel discovered that the father of the murder victim was on the panel of jurors from which the trial jury had been selected. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction because the inherent prejudice *467in the association with the panel members rendered impartiality impossible. In the instant case, the Majority relies upon Stewart to find inherent prejudice in the juror’s relationship. I believe that under Colon, we should look to the nature of the relationship to determine the potential for prejudice. The case at bar involves the husband of a conceivably part-time stenographer1 who worked in the law offices of appellee’s attorney. This relationship is vastly different from that in Stewart. In fact, I believe the connection between the challenged juror and the appellee is so remote and tangential that I would find that no new trial is required.
Consequently, I dissent.

. Appellee alleged in its brief that the stenographer was only part-time. There was no finding of fact on this issue.