Opinion ID: 1797114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Fleming was denied a fair trial by a fair and impartial jury as required by the United States and Mississippi Constitutions?

Text: The trial judge and the district attorney asked during voir dire if the potential jurors had ever been prosecuted for a crime. Although some members of the venire responded to this questioning, Clarence Terry Foster (Foster), did not. After the trial, Fleming discovered that Foster was a convicted felon. A hearing was held, and the trial court denied Fleming's motion for a new trial based on Foster's jury service. Fleming now argues that he is entitled to a new trial. The seminal case on this issue is Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381 (Miss. 1978). In Odom, this Court held that failure to respond to a question in voir dire does not warrant a new trial unless the trial court determines that the question propounded to the juror was 1) relevant to the voir dire examination, 2) unambiguous, and 3) such that the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. Id. at 1383. If the trial court answers these three inquiries in the affirmative, then the court determines whether prejudice to the defendant could be inferred. If so, then a new trial is ordered. A trial judge's decision on whether the jury was fair and impartial should not be disturbed unless it appears clearly that [the decision] is wrong. Id.; Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 847 (Miss. 1994); Bush v. State, 585 So.2d 1262, 1265 (Miss. 1991). It was stipulated by the parties that the venire was unambiguously asked whether they had been charged with or convicted of a felony. The focus of the hearing in the trial court was the third prong of the Odom test: whether Foster had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. The trial judge ruled that all three prongs of the Odom test had been met, but further ruled that Fleming was not prejudiced by Foster's service on the jury. As stated earlier, the review in this case is limited to whether it appears clearly that [the trial judge's decision that the jury was fair and impartial] is wrong. See Odom, 355 So.2d at 1383; Lewis v. State, 580 So.2d 1279, 1283 (Miss. 1991). If prejudice could have reasonably been inferred, then the trial judge should have granted a new trial. Id. This Court has held that prejudice to the defendant is presumed in situations such as the one sub judice: [f]ollowing a jury's verdict, where a party shows that a juror withheld substantial information or misrepresented material facts, and where a full and complete response would have provided a valid basis for challenge for cause, the trial court must grant a new trial, and, failing that, we must reverse on appeal. WE PRESUME PREJUDICE. Where, as a matter of common experience, a full and correct response would have provided the basis for a preemptory challenge, not rising to the dignity of a challenge for cause, our courts have greater discretion, although a discretion that should always be exercised against the backdrop of our duty to secure to each party trial before a fair and impartial jury. [Emphasis added]. T.K. Stanley, Inc. v. Cason, 614 So.2d 942, 949 (Miss. 1992) (emphasis added) (quoting Myers v. State, 565 So.2d 554, 558 (Miss. 1990), in which this Court held that juror was properly discharged and replaced with alternate where discharged juror did not divulge husband's convictions upon being asked in voir dire ); Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731, 754 (Miss. 1992). Furthermore, persons convicted of infamous crimes are not competent to serve on juries. See Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-1. Had Foster's status as a convicted felon been made known, he would have been properly excluded from the jury for cause.  Voir dire examination is often the most crucial crucible in forging our primary instrument of justice: the fair and impartial jury. Myers, 565 So.2d at 558. The facts in this case indicate that Fleming was denied a fair and impartial jury, and thus, he was denied justice. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.