Case Title: Sanders v. State

Citation: 278 Ark. 420, 646 S.W.2d 14

Docket Number: CR 82-144

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1983-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
646 S.W.2d 14 (1983) 278 Ark. 420 Michael SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. CR 82-144. Supreme Court of Arkansas. February 21, 1983. David H. White, Horseshoe Bend, for appellant. Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by William C. Mann, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. PURTLE, Justice. Appellant was convicted by a jury in Fulton County and sentenced to forty years for rape and five years for burglary. On appeal he alleges the trial court erred in allowing the prosecuting attorney to improperly voir dire the jury. We do not find prejudicial error even though the conduct by the prosecuting attorney was out of line. The only facts relevant to this opinion relate to voir dire of the jury by the state. Therefore, it will be necessary to set out part of the record as it occurred in the courtroom. The following is a part of the jury voir dire by the state: Several such rambling discourses were made despite objections by the defense. They were not in the form of questions to the jury but were the type statements usually made in opening statements or closing arguments. The purpose of voir dire examination is: (1) to discover if there is any basis for challenge for cause, and (2) to gain knowledge for the intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. A.R.Cr.P. Rule 32.2. The extent and scope of voir dire is generally within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Fauna v. State, 265 Ark. 934, 582 S.W.2d 18 (1979). Unless the trial court's discretion is clearly abused it will not be reversed on appeal. Finch v. State, 262 Ark. 313, 556 S.W.2d 434 (1977). The parties cannot use voir dire solely for the purpose of getting acquainted with the jury, nor is voir dire an unlimited proceeding. Van Cleave v. State, 268 Ark. 514, 598 S.W.2d 65 (1980). The trial court, however, should not unduly limit the extent of voir dire. Fauna v. State, supra. Although the trial court permitted the prosecuting attorney to go beyond the purpose of voir dire, there was no motion for a mistrial or admonition, therefore, we do not find prejudicial error. Affirmed.