Goodman v. Holly Angle, LMT
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 845
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Marjorie Goodman sustained neurological injury during massage by Angle, leading to negligence and loss of consortium claims against Angle.
- Goodmans sued Angle in 2008; trial in 2010 resulted in a verdict for Angle in all counts.
- Goodmans challenged Angle's peremptory strikes against three minority venirepersons (Batson challenges).
- Goodmans alleged court abused discretion by excluding collateral-issue cross-examination aimed at impeaching Angle's credibility.
- Angle cross-appealed, contingent on reversal; court affirmed and denied mootness of cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to Venireperson 9 | Angle's reason for striking was pretextual race goal. | Reason was race-neutral and plausible given case context. | No error; strike upheld as race-neutral. |
| Batson challenge to Venireperson 17 | Reasons were pretextual; race-based. | Reasons were race-neutral and non-pretextual. | Court precluded review due to failure to challenge race-neutral reasons at trial; challenge denied. |
| Batson challenge to Venireperson 21 (alternate juror) | Strikes not race-neutral; inappropriate exercise against minority. | Reasons were race-neutral and supported by voir dire context. | No clear error; strike affirmed. |
| Admission of collateral-impeachment evidence via books | Books show qualifications/credibility; relevant to credibility. | Books irrelevant to credibility or qualifications; not admissible. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; evidence excluded. |
| Angle cross-appeal mootness | Challenging trial rulings would require reversal for new trial. | No merit since Batson issues lack merit; cross-appeal moot. | Affirmed; cross-appeal denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kesler-Ferguson v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. banc 2008) (great deference to circuit court on Batson; clear-erroneous standard)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (Supreme Court 1995) (second step does not require persuasive reason; facial validity suffices)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (pretextual showing for purposeful discrimination in Batson)
- State v. Johnson, 930 S.W.2d 456 (Mo.App.1996) (pretext evidence required; not mere conclusory allegations)
- State v. Rollins, 321 S.W.3d 353 (Mo.App.2010) (venireperson's statement of impartiality does not resolve Batson inquiry)
- State v. Barnett, 980 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. banc 1998) (silence during voir dire as a permissible race-neutral explanation)
- Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. banc 2010) (impeachment methods: capacity, prior convictions, bias, prior statements, truthfulness)
- Carter v. Kemna, 255 F.3d 589 (8th Cir.2001) (Batson considerations; appellate review of trial court findings)