Graybill v. De Young
Before: Angellotti, Shaw, Beatty, Gray
Synopsis
Jurors—Challenge por Bias—Mixed Question op Law and Fact— Beview upon Appeal.—Upon the challenge of a prospective juror for bias, the question whether the juror is fair and impartial and should be allowed to sit in the case is a mixed question of law and fact to be determined in the first instance by the trial judge, who is in a better position to judge of his fairness than this court, which will interfere with the determination of that question only when the evidence upon the voir dire is such that it can be said from it as matter of law that the juror is so prejudiced or biased in the case that he will not be a fair juror.
Id.—Action por Libel—Challenge to Newspaper Man.—In an action for libel, where a juror challenged for bias stated that he was in the newspaper business, as editor and proprietor of a paper, that he associated actions for libel in somewhat the same character as speculations, in many instances unwarranted by the facts, and that he thought that the fact of his being a newspaper man and his adverse opinion of damage suits might create a prejudice in his mind, and make him unfit to act as a juror; but also stated, in response to questions, that he [ would try the case only upon the evidence adduced in court, and upon the law given by the court, it cannot be said as matter of law that the court erred in overruling the challenge. [Shaw, J., and Beatty, O. J., dissenting.]
Opinion — Gray
GRAY, C.
This is an action for libel. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment in his favor for the sum of one dollar. The appeal is by the plaintiff from an order denying him a new trial.
The appellant contends that the order should be reversed because his challenge to William V. Bryan on his examination touching his qualifications to act as a juror was denied, and he was therefore compelled to exercise a peremptory challenge on said Bryan, and this is the ¡only point made for a reversal.
The challenge to Bryan was’upon the ground “that he is in a state of mind evincing bias against the plaintiff,” and was based on subdivisions 1 and 7 of section 602 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The testimony of the juror was to the effect that he was in the newspaper business, was! the editor and proprietor of the Traveler. He associated actions for libel “in somewhat the same character as speculations,” and felt that in many instances they were unwarranted by the facts. He seemed to have this same opinion of “any kind of damage suit.” He thought the fact of his being a newspaper man and his adverse opinion of damage suits might create a prejudice in his mind and make him unfit to act as a juror. He did, however, say
[423]
in response to questions that he would try the case upon the evidence and upon the law given by the court, meaning no doubt that he would be guided by the instructions of the court as to the law of the-case, and beyond this would consider only the evidence produced in court. He seems to have had.no acquaintance with the parties to the suit and no knowledge of the facts involved in the case.
Whether a prospective juror is fair and impartial and should be allowed to sit in the case is a mixed question of law and fact to .be determined in the first instance by the trial judge. This court should interfere with the determination of that question only when the evidence adduced on the
voir dire
is of such a character that it can be said from it, as a matter of law, that the juror is so prejudiced or biased in the case that he will not be a fair juror.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)