valid basis challenge in Virginia

2026Rule 5A:20(c)(2) provides that “[a]n assignment of error that does not address the findings, rulings, or failures to rule on issues in the trial court . . . is not sufficient.” Bratton’s second assignment of error is that her “right to a fair trial was denied because of juror misconduct.” We conclude that the assignment of error, while not artfully drafted, addresses a ruling of the trial court—the court’s denial of the motion to set aside the verdict due to the juror misconduct issue. - 15 - question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis

2023Regarding Clark’s right to an impartial jury, the Commonwealth asserted that McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 556 (1984), required Clark to demonstrate that (1) the 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.

2026The movant must “then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 25 Va. App. at 18 ).

2003The court recited the standard of review as follows: CT]o be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 401 , 494 S.E.2d at 891 (emphasis added) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 12, 18, 486 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1997)) (additional citations omitted).

2026The movant must “then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 25 Va. App. at 18 ).

2024The Court held that “a litigant must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Blevins v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 291, 296-97 (2004).

2026A juror’s “motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” Id. (quoting Taylor, 25 Va. App. at 18 ). “[W]e will disturb the trial court’s decision regarding juror impartiality ‘only upon a showing of manifest error.’” Id. at 427 (quoting Weeks v. Commonwealth, 248 Va. 460, 475 (1994)).

2024The Court further observed that a litigant is ‘“entitled to a fair trial but not perfect a one,’ for there are no perfect trials.” McDonough, 464 U.S. at 553 (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1973)).

2012“The motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 12, 18 , 486 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1997). “[J]uror misconduct does not automatically entitle either litigant to a mistrial.” Robertson v. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, 249 Va. 72, 76 , 452 S.E.2d 845, 847 (1995).

2012“The motives for concealing information may vary, but only those reasons that affect a juror’s impartiality can truly be said to affect the fairness of a trial.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 12, 18 , 486 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1997). “[J]uror misconduct does not automatically entitle either litigant to a mistrial.” Robertson v. Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, 249 Va. 72, 76 , 452 S.E.2d 845, 847 (1995).

2003The court recited the standard of review as follows: CT]o be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 401 , 494 S.E.2d at 891 (emphasis added) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 12, 18, 486 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1997)) (additional citations omitted).

2003The court recited the standard of review as follows: CT]o be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 401 , 494 S.E.2d at 891 (emphasis added) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 25 Va.App. 12, 18, 486 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1997)) (additional citations omitted).

1998Swanson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 182, 184-85 , 442 S.E.2d 702, 703-04 (1994) (quoting Gosling v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 642, 645 , 376 S.E.2d 541, 543-44 (1989)). *401 However, to be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

1998Swanson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 182, 184-85 , 442 S.E.2d 702, 703-04 (1994) (quoting Gosling v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 642, 645 , 376 S.E.2d 541, 543-44 (1989)). *401 However, to be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

1998Swanson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 182, 184-85 , 442 S.E.2d 702, 703-04 (1994) (quoting Gosling v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 642, 645 , 376 S.E.2d 541, 543-44 (1989)). *401 However, to be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.

1998Swanson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 182, 184-85 , 442 S.E.2d 702, 703-04 (1994) (quoting Gosling v. Commonwealth, 7 Va.App. 642, 645 , 376 S.E.2d 541, 543-44 (1989)). *401 However, to be entitled to a mistrial for jury misconduct arising from voir dire, “a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.