Case Title: Mason v. Commonwealth

Citation: 

Docket Number: 971818

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1998-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
ROBERT K. MASON, a/k/a 
ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH 
 
 
            OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.  Record No. 971818 
April 17, 1998 
 
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court 
should have removed a juror, who had been empanelled and sworn 
without objection, because the juror purportedly lacked 
sufficient proficiency in the English language.   
 
Robert K. Mason was indicted by an Arlington County grand 
jury for the felony of habitual petit larceny in violation of 
Code §§ 18.2-96 and -104.  At a jury trial, the trial court 
and counsel for the litigants participated in the voir dire.  
Upon conclusion of the voir dire, the Commonwealth and the 
defendant exercised their peremptory challenges, and a jury 
consisting of 12 members was empanelled without objection.   
 
During the guilt phase of the bifurcated trial, the 
Commonwealth and the defendant presented their opening 
statement, evidence, and closing argument.  The jury then 
deliberated and returned a verdict of guilty.  In the 
sentencing phase at the trial, the Commonwealth presented 
additional evidence, but the defendant presented no evidence.  
The trial court instructed the jury on sentencing, defense 
counsel presented argument to the jury, and the jury retired 
to deliberate the defendant’s sentence.   
 
While the jury was deliberating, defense counsel made a 
motion for a mistrial because he had received information that 
one of the jurors purportedly had “great difficulty 
understanding English.”  The trial court interrupted the 
jury’s deliberations, summoned the jurors to the courtroom, 
and the following colloquy occurred: 
 
 
“THE COURT:  Ladies and gentlemen, I’m 
sorry to interrupt your deliberations, but the 
purpose of it is this:   
 
 
 
“A question was raised as to whether or 
not there is a juror who has difficulty with the 
English language and was not able to understand the 
testimony and is not able to understand the 
instructions and the colloquy in the jury room on 
the deliberations. 
 
 
 
“I’ve done these cases and have done them 
in Arlington, of course, for many years.  And 
usually where that is the case in a jurisdiction 
like Arlington, that person makes known to the Court 
that problem, if you will, and then the Court is 
permitted to make inquiry initially of the person’s 
experience with the English language. 
 
 
 
“Is that a problem with a juror, or I 
don’t want to embarrass anybody, but may I inquire 
who the juror is so that I can determine from that 
juror if there is a problem? 
 
 
 
“Is there any problem in the --  
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  Well, I don’t think it was a -- 
well, this is the young lady right here. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  All right. 
 
 
2
 
 
“A JUROR:  But we have at least two or 
three people that interpret the Spanish language, 
that really broke everything down for her. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  You speak English, don’t you? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  Yes, I speak English, but not 
perfect. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  Well, not too many know it to 
perfection.  We don’t practice that and we don’t 
expect it.  But do you work out in the community? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  I work in Washington, D.C. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  All right. 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  At Parkinson’s Hotel. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  You deal with people in 
English constantly, don’t you? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  Yeah. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  All right. 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  This is the first time I come 
over here.  So many things new.  The gentleman, he 
translate to me some things. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  Do you write in English? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  A little bit. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  And do you read English? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  Read more than write. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  You read more than you write.  
Do you read the newspapers? 
 
 
 
“A JUROR:  Yes. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  And you converse with English 
when you are with English-speaking people?  You 
converse with them in English, do you? 
 
 
3
 
 
“A JUROR:  Yeah.  In my job, yes. 
 
 
 
“THE COURT:  All right. 
 
 
 
“I see no problem with this person’s 
ability or level of understanding of English to 
certainly deliberate in the jury room.” 
 
 
After the jury had returned to the jury room to continue 
its deliberations, the court further explained its ruling 
denying the defendant’s motion: 
 
 
“Well, I was guided more by her ability to 
converse with me.  That’s the test.  And to sit 
through the voir dire and know when to raise her 
hand and make an inquiry.  
 
 
 
“In this community, which has its various 
national groups here, and in many other communities 
in this country, you have many more people serving 
on juries who are less acquainted with the local 
language than this lady is.  She would be so far 
above the minimum standard, I think, that she would, 
I think, pass anyone’s test.” 
 
The jury concluded its deliberations and fixed the defendant’s 
punishment at three years and nine months in the penitentiary.  
The jury was polled, and each juror responded affirmatively 
when asked by the clerk, “is this your verdict?”   
 
After the jury was discharged, the defendant renewed his 
motion for a mistrial.  Denying that motion, the trial court 
stated:   
 
 
“I spoke with her.  And when you made your 
motion, I had the jury come in and take their seats 
in the jury box and asked her specifically about her 
understanding and asked so the others could hear it, 
and her understanding of what I said seemed to me to 
be very good.  And her responses were directly to 
 
4
the statements that I had made.  And I had no reason 
to believe at all that she did not understand me. 
 
 
 
“She said that she reads English.  She 
does not write it too well.  She speaks it.  She 
works in an environment where she uses it.  And I 
think she meets the standard that we need as far as 
her ability to function as one of the 12 jurors, 
which she certainly appears to have done.” 
 
 
The trial court entered a judgment confirming the jury’s 
verdict, and the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished 
memorandum opinion, affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  
Robert Mason, a/k/a Anthony Bernard Smith v. Commonwealth, 
Record No. 0499-96-4 (1997).  Mason appeals.  
 
Mason argues that the trial court erred in denying his 
motion for a mistrial because due process requires a trial by 
an impartial jury of 12 members competent in the English 
language.  The Commonwealth responds that the defendant’s due 
process rights were not abridged because the challenged juror 
had a sufficient understanding of the English language.  We 
agree with the Commonwealth. 
 
A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a fundamental 
right to a trial by an impartial jury.  U.S. Const. amends. VI  
and XIV; Va. Const. art. I, § 8; Gray v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 
591, 592-93, 311 S.E.2d 409, 409-10 (1984).  The right of an 
impartial jury requires that the jury be capable of 
understanding the factual issues that it must resolve.  See 
Commonwealth v. Susi, 477 N.E.2d 995, 997 (Mass. 1985); State 
 
5
v. Hurd, 480 S.E.2d 94, 97 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996).  Indeed, the 
United States Supreme Court has stated that “[d]ue process 
means a jury capable and willing to decide the case solely on 
the evidence before it.”  Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 
(1982).  See also Susi, 477 N.E.2d at 997; State v. Gallegos, 
542 P.2d 832, 833-34 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). 
 
After the jury has been sworn, a litigant may only make 
an objection relating to the empanelling of jurors with leave 
of court.  Code § 8.01-352(A)(ii); Hill v. Berry, 247 Va. 271, 
273, 441 S.E.2d 6, 7 (1994).  Here, the trial court implicitly 
granted Mason leave to challenge the juror because the court 
decided his motion.  Hill, 247 Va. at 274, 441 S.E.2d at 7.  
However, a litigant who seeks to set aside a jury verdict or 
obtain a new trial on the basis of a juror’s disability must 
demonstrate that the “disability be such as to probably cause 
injustice in a criminal case to the Commonwealth or to the 
accused.”  Code § 8.01-352(B).  Additionally, we note that 
upon appellate review, we must give deference to the trial 
court’s decision whether to remove a juror because the trial 
court sees and hears the juror.  See Weeks v. Commonwealth, 
248 Va. 460, 475, 450 S.E.2d 379, 389 (1994), cert. denied, 
516 U.S. 829 (1995). 
 
Applying the aforementioned principles, we hold that the 
trial court properly denied Mason’s motion for a mistrial 
 
6
because the record fails to demonstrate that the challenged 
juror had a disability which was “such as to probably cause 
injustice” in Mason’s criminal trial.  The trial court 
examined the challenged juror to determine her level of 
proficiency in the English language.  As the colloquy between 
the trial court and the challenged juror indicates, the juror 
understood all the trial court’s questions.  The trial court 
made a factual finding that the challenged juror had a 
sufficient level of understanding of the English language 
which permitted her to participate fully in the jury 
deliberations.  According the trial court the deference to 
which it is entitled, we perceive of no reason to disturb the 
trial court’s finding, which is supported by the record.   
 
We do not consider the defendant’s argument that the 
trial court erred by improperly asking leading questions when 
the court examined the challenged juror because such argument 
was not raised in the trial court.  Rule 5:25.  Accordingly, 
the judgment of the Court of Appeals will be affirmed. 
Affirmed. 
 
7