Opinion ID: 1624645
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Neal was prejudiced by implicit communication from the trial court to the venire.

Text: ¶ 19. The trial court asked the members of the venire to indicate if they had had any type of contact or relationship with Neal that would preclude them from being fair-minded jurors. Nine venire persons indicated that they could not be fair and impartial. The trial court informed each of the nine that he or she would not be required to answer any further questions. After voir dire, all nine were excluded from the jury. Neal argues that the judge's instruction of each of the nine venire persons not to answer any further questions communicated implicitly to the other panel members if they wanted to stay on the jury, they should be cautious in giving any response that might indicate pre-judgment. ¶ 20. The trial judge has a duty to ensure that a competent, fair and impartial jury is empaneled. Tighe v. Crosthwait, 665 So.2d 1337, 1339 (Miss. 1995). Mississippi Code Section 13-5-79 states that a juror shall be excluded ... if the court be of the opinion that he cannot try the case impartially, and the exclusion shall not be assignable for error. Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (Rev.2002). This Court will presume that the voir dire process used at trial was sufficient to ensure a fair and impartial jury. Ross v. State, 954 So.2d 968, 988 (Miss.2007). A defendant must present evidence indicating that the jury was not fair and impartial and show that prejudice resulted from the circuit court's handling of the voir dire in order to rebut that presumption. Id. (citing Manning v. State, 735 So.2d 323, 336 (Miss.1999)). A trial court's determination that the jury is impartial will not be overturned by this Court absent an abuse of discretion. This Court will treat with deference a venire person's assertions of impartiality. Id. (citing Holland v. State, 705 So.2d 307, 336 (Miss.1997)). ¶ 21. Because Neal did not object to the trial court's statement during the voir dire process, this issue is procedurally barred. See Moody v. State, 841 So.2d 1067, 1075 (Miss.2003). Alternatively, this issue is without merit. Neal cites no authority for his proposition that the trial judge's actions were inappropriate, nor does he cite any evidence in the record that indicates the jury was prejudiced against him. Indeed, the record evinces that the trial court appropriately struck all nine venire persons due to their explicit inability to function as impartial members of the jury.