Opinion
No. 10-06-00178-CV.
Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2007.
Appealed from the 66th District Court, Hill County, Texas, Trial Court No. 40325.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Beverly Williams appeals a take nothing judgment rendered on her medical malpractice action as next friend and guardian of Kewon Williams. Because she did not preserve error regarding the trial court's denial of her challenges for cause, we affirm.
In her first issue, Williams asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike for cause seven venire members who, she alleges, either themselves or whose close relation has physician patient relationships with either David Skelton, Appellee, or the partners in Skelton's clinic. Skelton contends that Williams did not preserve error on this issue. We agree.
When a challenge for cause is erroneously denied, that error can be corrected by striking the venire member peremptorily. Cortez ex rel. Estate of Puentes v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 87, 90 (Tex. 2005). Error is only harmful if this peremptory challenge would have been used on another objectionable venire member. Id. To preserve error when a challenge for cause is denied, a party must use a peremptory challenge against the venire member involved, exhaust its remaining challenges, and notify the trial court that a specific objectionable venire member will remain on the jury list before exercising its strikes. Id. at 90-91. (Emphasis added).
The trial court denied Williams's challenges for cause on seven venire members. Williams had six peremptory strikes to use. She used only four strikes on the seven venire members. She did not use her remaining strikes on any of the three remaining challenged venire members about which she complains on appeal. The remaining two peremptory strikes were used on venire members who were not challenged for cause and are not subjects of this appeal. And prior to the parties making their peremptory strikes, Williams only made a global objection to the entire panel and moved to strike the panel. Williams did not inform the trial court that she would exhaust her peremptory strikes and that a specific objectionable venire member would remain on the jury panel.
Williams compares her situation to another appeal where the Austin Court of Appeals determined that the appellants had preserved error as to some of the venire members challenged for cause. See McMillin v. State Farm Lloyds, 180 S.W.3d 184 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. denied). McMillin is not dispositive because the appellants in that case informed the trial court that they would exhaust their peremptory strikes and listed specific objectionable jurors that would remain on the panel. Williams did not do this. Thus, Williams did not preserve error, if any, regarding the trial court's denial of her challenges for cause. Her first issue is overruled.
Williams's second and third issues question whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to either strike the venire panel or call in another panel so that a fair and impartial jury could be impaneled and questions whether the trial court erred in entering judgment against her or in failing to grant her motion for new trial. In her brief, Williams argues all her issues together. Other than stating in her argument that she "moved to strike the entire panel" and that "the court could have . . . struck the venire and called a new one, . . . or granted the motion for new trial, . . ." Williams provides no additional argument or any authority for these issues. To the extent that these issues are not subsumed within the first issue, they are improperly briefed, present nothing for review, and overruled.
Having overruled each of her issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment