Can voir dire explore prospective jurors' family associations with missionaries? Depew v. Sullivan Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in Depew v. Sullivan addressed whether trial courts may restrict voir dire questioning about prospective jurors’ family associations with missionaries, establishing important guidance for exploring potential bias while navigating constitutional restrictions on religious inquiry.

Background and Facts

Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries sustained in a traffic accident involving a motorcycle and truck. During jury selection, plaintiff’s counsel sought to ask whether prospective jurors had children serving missions, explaining this inquiry related to the fact that defendant was absent from trial because he was serving as a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The trial court denied the request, categorizing it as improper inquiry into religious affiliation and substituted a general question about whether defendant’s missionary service would affect jurors’ ability to decide the case fairly.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether the proposed question constituted improper religious inquiry under Utah Constitution Article I, Section 4, and whether the trial court’s substitute question adequately protected plaintiff’s right to explore potential juror bias. The case required balancing constitutional restrictions against religious discrimination in jury service with the fundamental right to discover bias through voir dire.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that plaintiff’s proposed question was not about religious affiliation but about family associations that could create bias. The question was religiously neutral, as having a child on a mission does not establish the parent’s religious beliefs. Even if considered religious inquiry, such questions are permissible when they may reveal actual bias, citing State v. Ball. The court rejected the trial court’s substitute question as a “stark little exercise” inadequate to reveal meaningful information about potential bias.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that voir dire serves dual purposes: detecting actual bias for challenges for cause and gathering information for intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. Trial courts must allow inquiry into potential bias sources, even when tangentially related to religion, if properly framed. The ruling emphasizes that general questions about fairness are insufficient substitutes for specific inquiries that may reveal bias.