MAINE	SUPREME	JUDICIAL	COURT Reporter	of	Decisions Decision: 2017 ME 207 Docket: Sag

- 17

- 5 Argued : September	13,	2017 Decided: October	17,	2017
Panel: SAUFLEY,	C.J.,	and	ALEXANDER , MEAD, GORMAN,	JABAR , HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

STATE	OF	MAINE

v. JEFFREY	W.	ROBY

GORMAN ,	J. [¶1] Jeff r e y	 W.	 Roby	 appeals	 from	 a	 judgment	 of	 conviction	 for domestic	violence	assault	(Class	D), 17

- A	M.R.S.	§	207

- A(1)(A)	(2016) , entered by	 the	 trial	court	(Sagadahoc County , Billings,	J. )	after	a	jury	 trial. He	argues that	 the	court abused	its	discretion	by	not	presenting	his	proposed	voir	dire questions	to	the jury pool

. We	affirm	the	judgment. [¶2 ] Viewing	the	evidence	in	th e	light	most	favorable	to	the	State as	the prevailing	 party ,	 the	 jury could	 rationally	 have	 found	 the	 following	 facts beyond	a	reasonable	doubt

. State	v.	Simons , 2017	ME	180,	¶	2,

-- - A.3d

-- - . On July	25,	2016,	Roby lived	with	his	sexual	partner in her house	in	Bowdoinham. During	 an	 argument	 that	 morning , Roby	 stomped	 on his	 partner’s bare	 left2 foot and	it	quickly	began	to bruise

. 1 After the	partner called	9

- 1

- 1, Roby was
arrest ed

. On	August	16,	2016,	the	State	charged	Roby	with	domestic	violence

a ssault	(Class	D),	17

- A	M.R.S.	§ 207

- A(1)(A), and	Roby	pleaded	not	guilty. [¶3 ] The	court	held	jury	selection o n December 2, 2016. On	that same date, 2 Roby	 proposed	a	 questionnaire that asked	 potential	jurors	 to indicate
their level	of	agreement with erroneous	statements	of	law	regarding	criminal prosecutions

. His proposed questionnaire	included	the	following : 1.	If	a	person	is	arrested	for	a	crime,	it	is	likely	they [ sic ] are	guilty

. (Please	circle	one) Strongly	agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree 2.	 A	 person	 accused	 of	 a	 crime	 should	 be	 required	 to	 present	 at least	some	evidence	to	prove	their [ sic ] innocence. (Please	circle one) Strongly	agree Agree Disagree Strongly	disagree [¶4 ] After	discussing Roby’s proposed	questionnaire with	trial	counsel,

t he court	declined	to use it	but ,	over	the	objection	of	the prosecutor,	agreed to

1 We	 reject	 Roby’s	 argument	 that	 the	 evidence	 was	 insufficient	 to	 establish	 each	 element	 of domestic	 violence	 assault	 beyond	 a	 reasonable	 doubt. Roby’s	 alternative	 explanation	 of	 the evidence

— that	a	donkey	caused	the	injury

— is	not	“sufficiently	credible	in	light	of	the	entire	record that	it	necessarily	raises	a	reasonable	doubt”	as	 to	his	guilt. State	v	Woodard ,	2013	ME	36,	¶	23, 68 A.3d	1250 (quo tation	marks	omitted); see State	v.	Bruzzese ,	2009	ME	61,	¶ 10, 974	A.2d	311

.
2 To	avoid	the	kind	of	last	minute	decisions	that	occurred	here,	a ll requests	for specific voir	dire questions	or	methods should be	submitted well	in	advance	of the	date	for	ju ry	selection , so that	the court and	 counsel have	 adequate	 time	 to	 identify	 and	 address any specific	 bias	 and	 prejudice concerns in	 a	 manner	 that	 avoids misleading or	 inappropriate questions	 that could confuse prospective	jurors. See State	v. Simons ,	2017 ME	180,	¶	22,

--- A. 3d

--- ; see M.R.U.	Crim.	P.	24(a).3

use a	 revised version	 of Roby’s questionnaire	 as	 part	 of	 the	 jury	 selection
process . The	court began jury	selection by	ordering each	member	of	the	pool to	 complete a	 confidential	 questionnaire that	 asked	 about his	 or	 her experience	 with	 domestic	 violence

. After	 excusing	 from	 the	 pool	 any individual	 who	 answered	 “yes”	 to	 a	 “disqualifying	 question”	 on	 the questionnaire,	the	court addressed	the	remaining	members of	the	jury	pool in open	 court

. The	 court	 began	 this	 portion	 of	 the	 selection	 process	 by explaining	some	of	the	“responsibilities	of	jurors	and	some	of	the	laws,	rights and	rules	that	apply	to	jury	service	and	apply	to	crim inal	cases. ” [¶ 5 ] After	completing	this	instruction,	t he	court o rdered	the	members
of the jury	 pool to	 complete the revised questionnaire , which contained six questions concerning	 the	 topics	 addressed	 by	 the	 court	 in	 its	 preliminary remarks. The record	contains	no	information	abou t	the	results	generated	by that	questionnaire ,	except	that	the	court	excused	sixteen	members	of	the	jury pool “based	upon	the	answ ers . ” [¶6 ] Next,	 before	 any	 additional	 questioning	 occurred,	 the	 State challenged multiple	jurors for	cause,	pursuant	to	M.R.U. Crim. P.	24(b) ,	due	to
their respective	 criminal	 records. Roby ob jected to only two	 of	 the State’s4 challenges and	 the	 court	 granted	 all	 the	 State’s	 requests to	 strike	 particular individuals	from	the	panel

. [¶ 7 ] The court then continued	with “routine”	 voir	 dire	 questions that allowed Roby and	 the	 State	 to	 determine	 whether	 any	members	 of	 the	 jury pool knew the lawyers,	the witnesses , or Roby ; knew or were related	to	each
other ; or were involved in	 or have family	 members	 in	 law	 enforcement positions

. Any	 positive	 response	 caused	 the	 court	 to	 ask	 some	 follow

- up questions	 to	 provide	 counsel	 with	 additional	 information	 about	 the juror’s knowledge	or	connection.		After completing the	follow

- up	questions,	the	co urt always	asked whether the	prospective	juror believed that he	or	she	could be fair	and	impartial

. [¶ 8 ] Thereafter ,	the State	reported that it	had	no	a dditional	challenges for	 cause. M.R.U.	 Crim.	 P.	 24(b). Roby made	 two	 challenges	 for	 cause. The court	granted	one,	and	denied	the	other. After that	portion	of	the	process,	the court	asked	both	attorneys	whether	they	were	“satisfied	with	proceeding	with
the	folks	on	this	list.” Both	attorneys	answered	affirmatively. [¶9 ] Ultimately ,	the	voir dire yielded	twelve	jurors	and	two	alternates. Roby told	 the	 court	 that the i mpaneled	 jury	 was	 acceptable	 to	 him

. On December	22,	2016,	the	court	held	a	jury	trial , and	the jury	returned	a	guilty5 verdict. Roby appeals from	 the	 resulting	 judgment	 of	 conv iction

. See M.R. App.	2(b) (Tower	2016) ; 15 M.R.S.	§ 2115	(2016)

. [¶1 0 ] Roby argues	 that the	 court ’s	 reje ction	 of	 his	 first	 proposed questionnaire denied	him the right	to	a fair	and	impartial	jury

. See Me.	Const. art.	 I,	 §	 6 ; State	 v.	 Libby , 485	 A.2d 627,	 629 (Me.	 1984)

. He	 asserts	 that

— although	 there	is	no	evidence	of	any	juror’s	bias

— his questions	as	proposed

were the	best	means	of	determining whether	the	jur ors	were truly	impartial

. [¶1 1 ] “We	 review	 challenges	 to	 the	 court’s	 conduct	 of	 voir	 dire	 for
abuse	of	discretion.” State	v.	 Lowry ,	2003	ME	38,	¶	7,	819	A.2d	331

. As	we have	reiterated	on	multiple	occasions,	t he purpose	of	the voir	dire	process “ is to	 detect	 bias	 and	 prejudice	 in	 prospective	 jurors,	 thus	 ensuring	 that a defendant	 will	 be	 tried	 by	 as	 fair	 and	 impartial	 a	 jury	 as	 possible

. ” Id. (quotation	marks	omitted) ; State	v.	O’Hara ,	627	A.2d	1001, 1003	(Me.	1993) ; State	 v.	 Lovely ,	 451	 A.2d	 900 ,	 901	 (Me.	 1982)

. We	 have	 also	 explained	 that voir	 dire	 “[q]uestions	 that	 have	 no	 relationship	 to	 a	 prospective	 juror’s knowledge,	bias,	or	predisposition,	or	that	are	intended	to	advocate	a	party’s position	 regarding	 the	 facts	 or	 issues	 in	 dispute,	 are	 i mproper.” Grover	 v. Boise	 Cascade	 Corp .,	 2004 ME 119, ¶	 19, 860	A.2d	 851 ; see	Simons ,	 2017	ME 180,	¶	22,

--- A.3d

--- .6 [¶1 2 ] In	order	to	select	a	qualified	and	impartial	jury ,	the trial	court has “[c]onsiderable	 discretion	 over	 the	 condu ct	 and	 scope	 of juror	 voir	 dire, ” because	 it	 is	 the	 trial	 court	 that	 “has	 the	 responsibility	 of	 balancing	 the competing	considerations	of	 fairness	 to	 the	defendant,	judicial	economy,	and avoidance	of	embarrassment	to	potential	jurors.” State	v.	Woodburn ,	559	A.2d 343,	344 (Me.	1989) ; see M.R.U.	Crim.	P.	24(a). [¶1 3 ] We	 conclude that	 the	 court	 did	 not abuse	 its	 discretion	 in	 its orchestration of	voir	dire

. Simons, 2017	ME	180,	¶	2 1 , --- A.3d

--- . Although

t he court did	not

— and	was	not	 required	 to

— “voir	dire	 the	jury	in	 the	exact manner	requested	by”	Roby, State	v.	Collin ,	1999	ME	187,	¶	8,	741	A.2d	1074 , the	 court e nsured	 that the voir	 dire process	was “sufficient	 to	 disclose	 facts that	 would	 reveal	 juror	 bias

. ” Low ry ,	 2003	 ME	 38,	 ¶	 11,	 819	 A.2d	 331; see Simons ,	2017	ME	180,	¶	21,

--- A.3d

--- .		The questions and	the	methods	used by	 the	 court addressed virtually	all	 of Roby’s concerns , including the	jurors’ experience	with domestic	 violence, Roby’s	constitutional rights	as	a	criminal
defendant , and potential law	enforcement biases

. [¶1 4 ] T he	 court acted	 well	 within	 its discretion	 in	 declining	 to use a questionnaire contain ing “utterly	 incorrect	 statement[s]	 of	 law	 and	 ask[ ing ] jurors	 to	 agree	 or	 disagree	 with	 the	 policy pronouncement [s] contained7 therein.” Simons ,	 2017	 ME	 180,	 ¶	 22,

--- A.3d

--- . As	 the	 court	 properly determined, “ q uestions	 that	cause	 the	prospective	jurors	 to	adopt	a	position
on	 the	 law	 without	 the	 benefit of	 the	 court’s	 instructions

.	 .	 . are not appropriate	questions.” Id. ( quotation marks omitted)

. The	entry	is: Judgment	affirmed.

James	 M.	 Mason,	 Esq. (orally) ,	 Handelman	 &	 Mason	 LLC,	 Brunswick,	 for appellant	Jeffrey W. Roby Jonathan	R. Liberman,	District	Attorney, and	Alexander	R.	Willette,	Asst.	Dist. Atty. (orally) , Office	of	the	District	Attorney,	Bath,	for	appellee	State	of	Maine

Sagadahoc County Unified	Criminal	Docket	docket	number	CR

- 2016

- 632 F OR C LERK R EFERENCE O NLY