Opinion ID: 1935115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Challenges to Voir Dire

Text: Defendant challenges the adequacy of the voir dire in respect of death qualification. Essentially, defendant argues that the inadequate questioning of several prospective jurors may have resulted in the seating of jurors who would have automatically voted for the death penalty, because not enough information was elicited regarding their views for the court or defense counsel properly to assess their death qualification. See Biegenwald, supra, 126 N.J. at 32, 594 A. 2d 172 (noting that exhaustion of peremptory challenges is not prerequisite to claim of prejudice based on inadequate voir dire ). Because we reverse defendant's death sentence on other grounds, an extended examination of this voir dire is not required. We have addressed at length the special concerns and requirements regarding voir dire in death-penalty cases, and have applied those principles to the jury selection issues raised in those cases. See, e.g., State v. DiFrisco, 137 N.J. 434, 459-73, 645 A. 2d 734 (1994); Martini, supra, 131 N.J. at 207-21, 619 A. 2d 1208; State v. Marshall, 123 N.J. 1, 79-98, 586 A. 2d 85 (1991); Biegenwald, supra, 126 N.J. at 28-45, 594 A. 2d 172; State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 443-57, 585 A. 2d 864 (1991); State v. Hunt, 115 N.J. 330, 347-64, 558 A. 2d 1259 (1989); State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 408-45, 550 A. 2d 1172 (1988). We have observed that the voir dire must be open-ended, thorough, and searching, sensitive to attorney participation, and designed to elicit a `potential juror's views, biases, and inclinations.' State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112, 128-29, 594 A. 2d 232 (1991) (quoting Biegenwald, supra, 126 N.J. at 39, 592 A. 2d 172). We note the trial court's efforts to conduct a probing voir dire. The court had the jurors fill out a questionnaire on topics relevant to the circumstances of the case and to the death penalty. The court then explained to each juror the general procedural principles involved in a capital case, notably bifurcation of the guilt and penalty phases. Subsequently, the court examined each juror on specific areas of concern raised by answers in the questionnaire, and then asked questions concerning the juror's views on the death penalty, including an open-ended question on the juror's general views. Both the prosecutor and defense counsel were then freely permitted to question each juror further regarding the death penalty or any other area of concern. In assessing the adequacy of voir dire, a reviewing court must examine the overall effectiveness of the jury-selection process. See State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223, 243-48, 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 257, 524 A. 2d 188. That certain questions of the court typically required only simple yes or no responses is perhaps unavoidable. The substantive and procedural aspects of a capital case are highly complex, and assessment of a juror's ability to adhere to those requirements will sometimes call for a limited use of close-ended questions that suggest a preferred response. Without undertaking a specific review of each juror's questioning, we are satisfied that the trial court conducted a generally adequate voir dire that fairly elicited the views of prospective jurors on their attitudes concerning the death penalty. In the event of re-trial, we expect that the court will conduct the voir dire in accordance with the principles articulated in our past cases. The court on retrial should also take into account the specific aspects of the original voir dire that were considered deficient by our dissenting colleague. Post at 573-76, 651 A. 2d at 65-66.