Haynes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haynes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

895 S.W.2d 638, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1995 WL 128480

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 28, 1995

DocketNo. 65907

StatusPublished

This text of 895 S.W.2d 638 (Haynes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haynes v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 895 S.W.2d 638, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1995 WL 128480 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Marvin Haynes, appeals from a jury verdict entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis ruling against appellant on his claim for personal injuries and in favor of respondent, American Family Mutual Insurance Company. We affirm.

Appellant claims error in the court’s refusal to sustain his request for a mistrial where opposing counsel utilized a peremptory strike to remove the only black venireperson from the jury panel without providing a race neutral reason. The proper remedy in a situation where peremptory strikes have been used in a discriminatory manner is to quash those particular strikes and allow the venire-persons stricken for discriminatory reasons to sit on the jury if they otherwise would. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 416 (Mo. banc 1993). This issue was not properly preserved for review here where appellant moved for a mistrial rather than to quash the alleged discriminatory strike. State v. Tims, 865 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). Point denied.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the order of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the order of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Marvin Haynes, appeals from a jury verdict entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis ruling against appellant on his claim for personal injuries and in favor of respondent, American Family Mutual Insurance Company. We affirm.

Appellant claims error in the court’s refusal to sustain his request for a mistrial where opposing counsel utilized a peremptory strike to remove the only black venireperson from the jury panel without providing a race neutral reason. The proper remedy in a situation where peremptory strikes have been used in a discriminatory manner is to quash those particular strikes and allow the venire-persons stricken for discriminatory reasons to sit on the jury if they otherwise would. State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 416 (Mo. banc 1993). This issue was not properly preserved for review here where appellant moved for a mistrial rather than to quash the alleged discriminatory strike. State v. Tims, 865 S.W.2d 881, 884 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). Point denied.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the order of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the order of the circuit court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 S.W.2d 638, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1995 WL 128480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-co-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack