Court Opinion

ID: 9763194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:38:28.882325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:39.951459
License: Public Domain

SEERDEN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case but write separately to further explain my reasons for overruling point of error number three. After the prospective juror mentioned insurance, appellant’s counsel asked to approach the bench and the following discussion transpired:
Mr. Hardy: In questioning the panel member, Mr. Waters [attorney for appel-lee] permitted this juror to go on and on about accidents raising insurance rates, so forth. I move that it’s poisoned this entire panel and I’d like to make a motion on the record.
[[Image here]]
The Court: Sure.
Mr. Hardy: Comes now plaintiff, in the above entitled cause, in questioning juror number twenty, the fact that this juror believes that every man should watch out for himself, that insurance rates are so high as a result of these injuries, that people have the responsibility to watch out for themselves, he’s injected insurance in the case, and the fact that insurance rates are prohibited — high at this point in time because of such injuries, we believe has poisoned this entire panel. The Court: All right. I’ll deny your motion.
The manner of conducting jury voir dire examination is largely within the trial court’s discretion. Johnson v. Reed, 464 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 981, 92 S.Ct. 1197, 31 L.Ed.2d 256 (1972). Only where the record demonstrates a clear abuse of this discretion will the power of the trial court be disturbed on appeal. See id. Taking into consideration the matters contained in the majority opinion as well as the content of appellant’s motion, I would hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to quash the jury panel.