Court Opinion

ID: 9640504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:07:21.404061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:30.453130
License: Public Domain

MOTION FOR REHEARING OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR TRANSFER TO THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT
In their motion for rehearing or in the alternative to transfer to the Supreme Court, plaintiffs-appellants David J. Meeker and Barbara A. Meeker allege that this court overlooked, misinterpreted, or misstated material matters of law and fact in arriving at its opinion. The allegations all concern matters raised at great length by appellants’ attorney in his 111 page appellants’ brief and 15 page reply brief filed here, and are primarily a rehash of the attorney’s arguments made in his brief and made during oral argument on appeal. Those allegations and arguments, as held in our opinion, were meritless then, and have not gained any stature in the interim.
The only allegation in the motion for rehearing that merits a response is the assertion that this court misstated facts when we stated, on page 15 of our opinion, that juror Dennis Tate “gave no impression that he would not be a fair and impartial juror.” Appellants’ attorney alleges that such statement is refuted by the record “which shows that Tate gave the distinct impression that he could not be a fair and impartial juror.”
There is nothing in the record that even remotely suggests that Tate, who did not serve on the jury but was on the jury panel, was prejudicial in any way against the Meekers. It is true that Tate, who was a small town banker who had had dealings through the bank with the Meekers and Pat Bishop, did not want to sit on the jury. By his answers, he did everything he could to get off the jury, but there was nothing in his answers to questions posed by the attorneys for both sides to indicate that he was prejudiced for or against any specific person, be it Bishop or the Meekers.
In their motion, the Meekers state the following regarding questions asked Tate by the attorneys during voir dire and his answers to them which allegedly show bias on his part:
After stating that both sides of the lawsuit were clients of his, Tate was asked: ‘Do you think that that might effect [sic] your ability to give each side of the case a fair and impartial trial.?’ Mr. Tate responded ‘I think it very possibly could effect [sic] my ability to do that.’ When asked by Shelter’s counsel, ‘Are you willing and are you able to listen to the evidence that comes into this case from the witness stand here and listen to the jury instructions that the judge gives you in this case and decide this case based solely on that?’, Mr. Tate responded, ‘I’m not sure I could do that.’ When Shelter’s counsel rephrased the question and asked: ‘Do you feel like in your own mind that you could listen to the evidence in this case and render a decision that in your own mind you believe is fair based on the evidence?’, Mr. Tate replied: ‘That’s a tough question to answer. I don’t know.’
While Tate, in his answers to the attorneys’ questions, waffled on whether he could be impartial, the important question is whether those answers amounted to a “manifest invasion of a fair trial” for the Meekers. Hefele v. National Super Markets, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 800, 804 (Mo.App.1988) (quoting Johnson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 374 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo.1963)), as the crucial question is whether such answers given by the prospective juror indicated an actual bias against the Meekers. State v. Owens, 620 S.W.2d 448, 450 (Mo.App.1981). It is obvious that they did not. The mere possibility of prejudice on the part of a prospective juror does not disqualify him, as actual bias against the interest of the litigant must be shown. State v. Johnson, 721 S.W.2d 23, 31 (Mo.App.1986). Since there was no showing of prejudice to the Meekers by retaining Tate on the jury panel, there was no clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the Meekers’ challenge of Tate for cause.
*748The motion for rehearing, or in the alternative to transfer to the Supreme Court, is denied.
All concur.