Laura A. Newman, LLC v. Roberts
365 P.3d 972
Colo.2016Background
- Plaintiff Roberts was injured in an altercation and sued Newman, LLC (and others); at trial only Roberts's Premises Liability Act claim against Newman, LLC went to the jury.
- During voir dire Roberts challenged three jurors for cause; the trial court denied all three rehabilitations.
- Roberts used three of five peremptory challenges to remove those jurors and ultimately exhausted all five peremptories.
- The jury returned a verdict for Newman, LLC; on appeal the court of appeals held the denial as to Juror B was erroneous and reversed under Colorado precedent requiring automatic reversal when a for-cause denial forces use of a peremptory.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the civil automatic-reversal rule (Blades/Kennedy line) should be overruled in light of the court’s criminal decision in People v. Novotny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an erroneous denial of a challenge for cause that causes a party to use a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal in a civil case | Roberts: automatic reversal required under Blades/Kennedy because impairment of peremptory challenges abridges a substantial right and guarantees unfairness | Newman: follow Novotny — impairment of peremptory challenges is not per se structural; apply harmless-error/outcome-determinative analysis under C.R.C.P. 61 | The court overruled Blades/Kennedy to the extent they require automatic reversal; civil courts must apply the Rule 61 harmless-error standard and ask whether the error substantially influenced the outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 317 (Colo. 1985) (established automatic reversal in civil cases when denial for cause forced use of peremptory)
- People v. Novotny, 320 P.3d 1194 (Colo. 2014) (rejected automatic-reversal rule in criminal cases; required outcome-determinative harmless-error analysis)
- Denver City Tramway Co. v. Kennedy, 117 P. 167 (Colo. 1911) (early source for automatic-reversal principle)
- People v. Macrander, 828 P.2d 234 (Colo. 1992) (extended automatic-reversal rule in criminal context)
- People v. Lefebre, 5 P.3d 295 (Colo. 2000) (held deprivation of parity in peremptories caused a Fourteenth Amendment violation and warranted reversal)
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Langdon, 532 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1975) (summarily treated erroneous denial of peremptory as reversible error)