Opinion
Record No. 971938
September 18, 1998
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Koontz, and Kinser, JJ., and Poff, Senior Justice
The Court of Appeals correctly held that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a mistrial when a juror failed to respond to a question during voir dire and made a disclosure of responsive information after opening statements had been delivered. The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 25 Va. App. 12, 486 S.E.2d 108 (1997).
Criminal Law and Procedure — Jury Selection — Voir Dire — Mistrial
During voir dire in a second degree murder prosecution, the trial court asked prospective jurors, "Have any of you ever been the victim or have any members of your immediate family ever been the victim of a violent crime?" One juror did not respond. Following the exercise of peremptory challenges, she was included as a jury member. After impanelment and opening statements, but before evidence was presented, the court recessed for lunch. Upon reconvening, the juror revealed that her husband had been held up at gunpoint earlier that year. She reiterated the inadvertence of her nondisclosure during voir dire and stated her belief that she could try the case at bar on the basis of the evidence presented Defendant's counsel asked no questions of the juror but requested a mistrial, noting that the exercise of strikes was complete. The court found that the juror had not intentionally withheld the information and that she honestly believed and demonstrated that the incident would not interfere with her judgment. The court denied defendant's motion for mistrial, finding that going forward would not prejudice defendant. Defendant appeals his conviction.
1. On appeal the denial of a motion for a mistrial will not be overruled unless there exists a manifest probability that the denial of a mistrial was prejudicial.
2. The United States Supreme Court has held that it ill serves the important end of finality to wipe the slate clean simply to recreate the peremptory challenge process because counsel lacked an item of information which objectively he should have obtained from a juror on voir dire examination.
3. To obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. The motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror's impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.
4. Applying these principles, the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. Notwithstanding the juror's failure to respond timely to the question propounded during voir dire, there was no dispute at trial the she stood indifferent to the cause. Because there was no basis for a challenge for cause, her presence on the jury did not affect the essential fairness of the trial, notwithstanding the impairment to defendant's right of peremptory challenge. Thus, no manifest probability that the denial of defendant's motion for a mistrial was prejudicial is found.
Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Affirmed.
Sterling Harrisbe Weaver, Sr. for appellant.
John H. McLees, Jr., Assistant Attorney General ( Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
[1-4] We awarded this appeal to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant a mistrial based on a juror's delayed response to a voir dire question. Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 12, 486 S.E.2d 108 (1997).
For the reasons stated in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, we will affirm the judgment entered below.
Affirmed.