 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Suliman v. Open Door West5/15/1997
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Sondra V. Suliman ("appellant") appeals from the trial court's denial of her two motions for a mistrial.
Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ITS DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL DUE TO AN IMPARTIAL AND TAINTED JURY.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ITS DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL BEFORE AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE BY HIS STATEMENT THAT HE IS GOING TO DISMISS THE CASE THE NEXT MORNING PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF ORAL TESTIMONY AND SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE.
Finding the appeal to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I.
Plaintiff filed a complaint for sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal against Open Door West, Inc., and its president. On October 1, 1996, the case proceeded to trial by jury. On October 10, 1996, the trial court dismissed the jury for the day. As two jurors were leaving, they asked defense counsel how much longer the trial would go on. The jurors stated defense counsel had said the trial only would take a couple of days. Defense counsel responded to the questions and told them the trial would probably be over the next day. The jurors further remarked that they had jobs and families and other responsibilities. At that point, defense counsel directed the jurors to speak to the judge. No further conversation took place between the jurors and defense counsel.
The next day, appellant's counsel made a motion for a mistrial based on this conversation. The trial judge called both attorneys into chambers to discuss the matter. Defense counsel informed the trial judge that there were no prior conversations between himself and the jurors. He surmised the jurors based their belief on the length of the trial on his statement during voir dire that the trial would go into the next week. The trial court denied the motion.
Counsel for appellant made a second motion for a mistrial because the trial court had stated the day before that it intended to dismiss the case the next day. Counsel argued this showed a prejudgment by the trial court that the case should be dismissed before all of the evidence was heard. The trial court also denied this motion. The trial continued with the arguments and jury charge and the jury returned a verdict for the defense.
II.
In her first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court should have granted the first mistrial motion because the jury was not impartial and untainted. Appellant argues the jury was influenced by an extrinsic consideration in that it did not want to stay any longer but just wanted to go home. Appellant surmises the jurors' anger at the length of the trial prevented them from properly deliberating in a calm and rational manner and caused the jury to rush to judgment. Appellant also argues the jurors' statements imply that there had been a previous conversation between the jurors and defense counsel.
A trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial will not be reversed upon appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Apaydin v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 149, 152. An abuse of discretion is found where a decision is so grossly violative of fact and logic that it demonstrates a perverse will, a defiance of judgment, undue passion, or extreme bias. Huffman v. Hair Surgeon Inc. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 87.
A motion for mistrial or for a new trial should be granted due to conversations between a juror and a third person when that person is attempting to influence the verdict and the record demonstrates that the dec
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|