Hartt v. City of Keizer

Actual bias is a question of fact to be determined by the court from all of the circumstances, including the prospective juror’s demeanor, apparent intelligence, and candor during voir dire. State v. Villeda, 324 Or App 502, 507 P3d 1213 (2023).

Hartt ("plaintiff") appeals from a judgment for Marion County, the City of Keizer, and the City of Salem ("defendants") after a jury trial. Plaintiff brought a negligence action against defendants for injuries suffered from a canine during his arrest; seeking damages of $7.5 million. Plaintiff assigned error to the trial court to the rejection of for-cause challenge to one of Juror 103. Juror 103 stated their biases against plaintiff during voir dire after they were told the background. After extensive questioning of juror 103, the trial court decided to not excuse juror 103. Plaintiff objected that juror was appropriate for cause and the trial court declined. Plaintiff appealed from the judgement for defendants and argued that the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting his for-cause challenge. Defendants argued that plaintiff did not preserve his challenge. Actual bias is a question of fact to be determined by the court from all of the circumstances, including the prospective juror’s demeanor, apparent intelligence, and candor during voir dire. State v. Villeda, 324 Or App 502, 507 P3d 1213 (2023). The Court held that plaintiff’s appeal was preserved. The Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The Court reasoned that it is not dispositive for a juror to disclose preconceived ideas about a case if the court later finds that the juror will be impartial. The Court found that the trial court sufficiently educated and questioned juror 103 and was convinced that juror 103 could be fair and impartial. AFFIRMED.