Opinion ID: 1919690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 30

Heading: the trial court erred in allowing the district attorney to question jurors first in individual sequestered voir dire and in allowing the liberal use of leading questions by the prosecutor to coach responses from jurors.

Text: Davis argues that the trial judge committed reversible error when he allowed the prosecution to educate jurors during individual sequestered voir dire. Davis complains in effect that the prosecution's use of leading questions allowed them to coach potentially favorable venire members into giving favorable responses so that they could stay on the venire panel. Voir dire in criminal cases is governed by the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice 5.02, which provides: In the voir dire examination of jurors, the attorney shall direct to the entire venire questions only on matters not inquired into by the court. Individual jurors may be examined only when proper to inquire as to answers given or for other good cause allowed by the court. No hypothetical questions requiring any juror to pledge a particular verdict will be asked. Rule 5.02 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice does not address the manner of questioning allowed during voir dire. This issue appears to be one of first impression within the State of Mississippi. The cases Davis cites are inapposite to the case sub judice. In Schwenke v. State, 768 P.2d 1031 (Wyo. 1989), the Wyoming Supreme Court questioned the trial judge's use of leading questions of the venire members. The Wyoming Court stated that the trial court's use of leading questions was a tool of advocacy and not neutrality. Schwenke, 768 P.2d at 1033. In State v. Williams, 550 A.2d 1172 (N.J. 1988), the New Jersey Supreme Court expressed reservations over an instruction given by the trial judge to venire members. The instruction effectively told the jurors what answers during the death qualification process lead to automatic excusal from the venire panel and what responses would allow them to stay on the venire panel. Williams, 550 A.2d at 1181. The case at bar differs from both of the cases Davis cites. In Schwenke and Williams the trial judge asked the leading questions. In the case at bar, the prosecution asked the questions. As the Court in Schwenke, observed: [leading questions] are the tool of advocacy, not neutrality. Schwenke, 768 P.2d at 1033. In the case at bar, the prosecution was acting as an advocate when it asked the alleged leading questions. In Williams and Schwenke the trial judge acted as an advocate through his questions and instructions and therefore the process of voir dire lost its neutrality. Accordingly, these cases are not dispositive to the case at bar and this assignment of error is without merit.