Court Opinion

ID: 9369934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 08:20:35.261704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:18.006832
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-21-00238-CV
                              __________________

    PATRICIA LOWE, MARGARET WAPLE AND KATHRYN HART,
                        Appellants

                                        V.

                          CAROL ROGERS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 284th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 20-07-08089-CV
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants Patricia Lowe, Margaret Waple, and Kathryn Hart appeal the

jury’s verdict awarding them damages for injuries they sustained in a motor vehicle

accident caused by Appellee Carol Rogers. In a single issue, Appellants complain

that the trial court seated a biased juror on the jury panel after the trial court

unmistakably struck the juror for cause, depriving them of their constitutional and

                                        1
statutory right to a fair trial with twelve qualified jurors. As set forth below, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                          PERTINENT BACKGROUND

      During voir dire, the following exchange occurred with Juror 20:

             ...

             [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Is there anybody here who, for
      whatever reason, is going to be affected in their ability to give all parties
      in the lawsuit a fair and reasonable evaluation of the evidence?

             Yes. Ma’am.

             [VENIREPERSON 20]: I have a question. Can we ask what sort
      of dollar amount you’re talking about in damages? And the only reason
      I asked is because I have a problem if it is an excessive amount of
      money.

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Well, the amount of damages is in
      dispute.

             [VENIREPERSON 20]: Oh, I’m sorry.

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The amount of damages is in dispute,
      and I’m not sure exactly what they will ultimately ask for, but I just
      wanted to thank you for your comment.

             [VENIREPERSON 20]: That’s – honestly I do have a problem
      with it.

             [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Anybody else? Thank you very, very
      much. I appreciate it. We – we’re looking forward to a few good days
      of trial with you. Thank you.

            THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, could I see you at the bench,
      please.

                                           2
            (AT THE BENCH, ON THE RECORD)

            THE COURT: I’m striking the following jurors for cause,

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Oh, wait. All right.

            THE COURT: These are gone: 20, 21, and 57.

            ...

      Before the parties made their final strikes, the following exchange occurred:

            THE COURT: Does anybody need a refresher on who is not with
      us anymore:

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think we do.

            THE COURT: All right. Are you ready?

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.

            ...

            THE COURT: All right. 1 and 2 are gone. 4 and 5, 11 and 12,
      14, 15, 19, 21 - - I’m only calling those that are gone; right?

            [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes.

           THE COURT: 28 and 29, 31, 37, and 40. The ones after that are
      immaterial because they are off the list.

At this point, neither party objected that Venireperson 20 was not announced by the

Court as being gone also. After a short recess, the trial court announced the jury,

which included Venireperson 20, and neither party objected to Venireperson 20

being seated on the jury.

                                        3
      After the jury heard evidence regarding the Appellants’ damages, the jury

rendered a unanimous verdict awarding the Appellants individual damages for

physical pain and impairment, mental anguish, medical expenses, loss of parental

consortium, and lost wages. When the trial court asked the parties if they had any

motions pertaining to the verdict, Appellants’ counsel moved that the verdict be

accepted, and the trial court accepted the verdict and dismissed the jury. Appellants

filed Plaintiffs’ Qualified Counter-Motion to Enter Proposed Final Judgment, or,

Alternatively, Motion to Continue Hearing on Entry of Judgment, objecting to

Defendant’s proposed Final Judgment and arguing that they disagreed with the

jury’s findings concerning the amount of damages and that there was a fatal defect

which would support a new trial. Appellants stated they intended to file a Motion for

New Trial, and if the trial court denied a new trial, Appellants requesting the trial

court enter Plaintiffs’ Proposed Final Judgment, which they argued qualified to

preserve appellate issues they intended to raise in a Motion for New Trial. The trial

court rendered a Final Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc based on the jury’s verdict. The

clerk’s record does not contain a Motion for New Trial.

                                   ANALYSIS

      In their sole issue, Appellants argue they were constitutionally and statutorily

deprived of a jury with twelve unbiased members, and they were harmed when the

trial court erroneously seated a venireperson it had sua sponte struck for cause due

                                         4
to bias. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, § 13; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 62.201

(noting jury is composed of twelve persons). Appellants argue they were deprived

of twelve qualified jurors because venireperson 20 exhibited a bias against awarding

an excessive amount of money in damages and that the error was not discoverable

until the record was completed. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 62.105(4) (listing

disqualifications); Tex. R. Civ. P. 228 (discussing challenges for cause). Rogers

argues Appellants waived error and failed to demonstrate harm.

      The Texas Constitution and the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require that a

district court jury consist of twelve members unless not more than three jurors die

or be disabled from sitting. Tex. Const. art. V, § 13; Tex. R. Civ. P. 292(a). A party

is entitled to a jury of twelve qualified jurors. See Tex. Const. art. I, § 15, art. V, §

13; Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 62.201. The Sixth Amendment and the Texas

Constitution guarantees litigants a right to trial by a fair and impartial jury. See U.S.

CONST. amend. VI; Tex. Const. art. I, § 15. A prospective juror who admits bias or

prejudice is disqualified to serve as a juror as a matter of law. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 62.105(4); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 228 (stating a challenge for cause is an objection

made to a juror alleging some fact which by law disqualifies the juror to serve as a

juror). Since the Texas Supreme Court has held that “[i]n cases involving juror

disqualification the Complainant need not establish that probable injury resulted

therefrom before a new trial may be granted[,]” the argument that the presence of a

                                           5
disqualified juror does not result in material harm unless an insufficient number of

qualified jurors remain is contrary to controlling authority. Compton v. Henrie, 364

S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex. 1963); Dempsey v. Beaumont Hosp., Inc., 38 S.W.3d 287,

290–91 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, pet. dism’d) (noting that the deprivation of a

full jury of twelve members, absent an exception authorized by the constitution or

applicable rules, is a denial of the right to jury trial guaranteed by Texas

Constitution).

      The participation of an unqualified juror in the jury’s verdict does not

automatically entitle a party to a new trial. BZ Tire Shop v. Brite, 387 S.W.3d 837,

838 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (citations omitted). An appellant can

waive a complaint that a juror is unqualified. See id.; see also Dempsey, 38 S.W.3d

291 (analyzing whether Dempsey waived right to complain that verdict was rendered

by only eleven jury members by failing to object); Mercy Hosp. of Laredo v. Rios,

776 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1989, writ denied) (holding

appellant waived complaint that illiterate juror was disqualified); Jenkins v.

Chapman, 636 S.W.2d 238, 240 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1982, writ dism’d)

(holding appellant waived complaint regarding unqualified juror who was accepted

and not complained about until after unfavorable verdict).

      Prior to the parties exercising their strikes, Appellants did not object when the

trial court omitted venireperson 20 from the list of excluded jurors. Appellants did

                                          6
not object to the trial court’s decision to seat venireperson 20 on the jury or otherwise

seek to exclude her from the jury. The record shows that Appellants did not object

to venireperson 20’s jury service at any time during trial. Since Appellants failed to

object at trial, they have not preserved this issue for our review. See Tex. R. App. P.

33.1(a). Accordingly, we overrule Appellants’ sole issue and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                       _________________________
                                                          W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                              Chief Justice

Submitted on December 20, 2022
Opinion Delivered February 9, 2023

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

                                           7