An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to deny a motion for a new trial on the grounds enumerated in § 25-11-102, MCA, for an abuse of discretion. The decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the sound discretion of a trial judge and will not be disturbed absent a showing of manifest abuse of that discretion. That standard requires that the abuse of discretion be so significant as to materially affect the substantial rights of a complaining party. Cooper v. Hanson, 2010 MT 113, ¶ 28, 356 Mont. 309, 234 P.3d 59 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
We review denial of a challenge to dismiss a juror for cause for abuse of discretion. Dismissal for cause is favored when a serious question arises about the juror's ability to be impartial. Disqualification based on a juror's alleged prejudice is necessary only where jurors form fixed opinions on the guilt or innocence of the defendant which they would not be able to lay aside and render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented in court. Abuse of discretion occurs if a court fails to excuse a prospective juror if actual bias is discovered during voir dire. Further, coaxed recantations of admissions of bias are merely fodder for appeal. It is not a district court's role to rehabilitate jurors whose spontaneous, and thus most reliable and honest, responses on voir dire expose a serious question about their ability to be fair and impartial. State v. Freshment, 2002 MT 61, ¶ 11, 309 Mont. 154, 43 P.3d 968 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
When a trial court fails to dismiss a biased juror, such an error is structural because the error precedes the presentation of evidence, affects the framework of the trial, and the error cannot be qualitatively or quantitatively weighed against the evidence. Therefore, such an abuse of discretion is conclusively prejudicial and requires automatic reversal if: (1) a district court abuses its discretion by denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror; (2) the objecting party uses one of his or her peremptory challenges to remove the disputed juror; and (3) the objecting party exhausts all of his or her peremptory challenges. State v. Freshment, 2002 MT 61, ¶ 11, 309 Mont. 154, 43 P.3d 968 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Montana Supreme Court's standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion for a new trial depends on the basis of the motion. When the basis of a motion for a new trial is alleged jury misconduct, this Court will not disturb a district court's decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion. A manifest abuse of discretion is one that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable. The Supreme Court will give considerable weight to the determination of the district court because it is in the best position to observe the jurors and determine the potential for prejudice when allegations of jury or bailiff misconduct are raised, and the district court will have significant latitude when ruling on these matters. Stebner v. Associated Materials, Inc., 2010 MT 138, ¶ 11, 356 Mont. 520, 234 P.3d 94 (citations omitted).