450 P.3d 834
Kan. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Donnie King sued Casey's after slipping on ice in a Casey's parking lot and proceeded to jury trial after a brief, unsuccessful settlement discussion.
- During voir dire, potential juror J.W. was seated; another panelist R.M. was later peremptorily struck and then telephoned King’s counsel claiming a juror had said Casey's made King a settlement offer and that King should have taken it.
- The court replayed a recorded call from R.M., recalled and re‑examined J.W. and juror L.S.; J.W. said a coworker had remarked there might have been a settlement offer but denied knowing particulars or discussing it after being sworn.
- The court found conflicting accounts, concluded there was no proven intentional juror misconduct, but excused J.W. out of caution before deliberations and continued with 11 jurors.
- The jury returned a verdict finding no fault on either side; King moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct (false/incomplete voir dire answers), which the court denied; King appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | King’s Argument | Casey’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether J.W.’s failure to volunteer he had heard of a settlement constituted a false answer on voir dire that presumes prejudice and requires a new trial | Omission equates to deceptive voir dire; Kerby exception means presumed prejudice | No intentional false answer shown; evidence conflicts and district court should be afforded discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence conflicted, no proved intentional deception, Kerby exception inapplicable |
| Whether removal of the juror cured any potential prejudice | Removal after discovery cannot undo the need for a new trial if voir dire deception occurred | Removal before deliberations cured any possible harm; no showing of actual prejudice | Court: Removal cured any alleged prejudice; King failed to show the jury’s deliberations were affected |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerby v. Hiesterman, 162 Kan. 490 (Kan. 1947) (juror’s false answer on voir dire may itself be prejudicial)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892) (jurors must render impartial judgment based on evidence)
- Warger v. Shauers, 574 U.S. 40 (U.S. 2014) (bias or concealment in voir dire can be addressed before the verdict; removal may cure prejudice)
- State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 (Kan. 2019) (jurors are not required to be clairvoyant; failure to volunteer speculative information is not necessarily deceit)
- State v. Jenkins, 269 Kan. 334 (Kan. 2000) (intentional false answers to material voir dire questions warrant reversal)