HEATHER IRIMI, etc. v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.
15-0759
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2017Background
- Wrongful-death suit against tobacco companies; jury found for plaintiff and apportioned liability, then defendants moved for a new trial.
- During voir dire plaintiff’s counsel asked a group question about whether families of long-term smokers should be allowed to sue; several venire members raised hands and said they could not set aside their views.
- After a bench discussion in which the trial judge and counsel debated logistics and potential prejudice, the court excused 31 venire members for cause without permitting defense counsel to orally question them first; defense objected and accepted the jury subject to reservation.
- At trial the court followed defendants’ requested instruction limiting punitive damages (no punitive for negligence/strict liability) and omitted a punitive-damages question tied to reliance; jury returned a plaintiff verdict.
- Trial court granted defendants’ motion for new trial solely on the ground that excusing 31 jurors without allowing defense voir dire deprived defendants of their right to question the entire venire and risked tainting remaining jurors; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusing 31 venire members for cause without allowing defense oral voir dire warrants a new trial | Irimi: Court did not err; judge may strike jurors who cannot be impartial and there is no absolute right to examine a juror once bias is established | Defendants: Florida law requires that attorneys be allowed to orally examine prospective jurors; excluding jurors without defense questioning is reversible error | Court affirmed grant of new trial — trial court abused discretion in procedure by excusing jurors without affording defense opportunity to examine them and corrected that error by ordering a new trial |
| Whether any new trial should be limited to punitive-damages entitlement only | Irimi: If error affirmed, new trial should be limited to punitive damages issue | Defendants: Sought full new trial and preserved other issues | Court declined to reach punitive-damages issues because new trial on venire error was granted; refused to limit new trial to punitive issue |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1985) (trial court erred by allowing prosecutor but not defense to question jurors before excusal; due-process violation)
- Melendez v. State, 700 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (failure to allow counsel to inquire about juror bias is abuse of discretion unless it is conclusively clear juror cannot be impartial)
- Fleckinger v. State, 642 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (court may excuse a juror without counsel questioning when record makes it absolutely and unambiguously clear juror is incapable of impartiality)
- Jenkins v. State, 824 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.431(b) preserves parties’ right to orally examine jurors during voir dire)
- Jackson v. State, 213 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 2017) (trial court must excuse a juror when reasonable doubt exists about juror impartiality; consider context and entirety of responses)
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (background precedent regarding tobacco litigation relied upon in related issues)