Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 726668.pdf

cannot later challenge that juror's inclusion."44 But where a juror's misconduct

prevents a party from learning of the juror's bias, the party does not waive its

right to challenge him by failing to question him during voir dire.45

The County contends the jury's unanimity makes Marin's objections about

juror 71 irrelevant. We need not decide this question because the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in handling the jury issues before it.

First, Marin waived his for-cause challenge by not raising it during voir

dire.46 The exception to the waiver rule does not apply because juror 71 did not

prevent Marin from learning of his potential bias by misconduct.47 He disclosed

on his questionnaire that he was "[g]ood friend[s] with a King County prosecutor."

He responded to a pertinent general question about this topic during voir dire by

43 RCW 2.28.150.
44 Dean v. Grp. Health Coop, of Puget Sound. 62 Wn. App. 829, 836, 816
P.2d 757 (1991).
45 In re Pet, of Broten, 130 Wn. App. 326, 337, 122 P.3d 942 (2005).
46 See Dean. 62 Wn. App. at 836.
47 See Broten. 130 Wn. App. at 338. Juror misconduct is a fact question
within the trial court's discretion. Dean. 62 Wn. App. at 837. To show
misconduct, "a party must prove (1) that 'a juror failed to answer honestly a
material question on voir dire' and (2) that 'a correct response would have
provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.'" Broten. 130 Wn. App. at 337
(emphasis omitted) (quoting McDonough Power Eguip.. Inc. v. Greenwood. 464
U.S. 548, 556, 104 S. Ct. 845, 78 L. Ed. 2d 663 (1984)).
-20-
             

No. 72666-8-1 / 21

raising his card. Marin did not guestion him or attempt to strike him from the jury