Opinion ID: 1626909
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inquiry of Prospective JurorsMercy

Text: Orme contends that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Orme to inquire of prospective jurors whether they could consider recommending a life sentence as a matter of mercy even if the aggravators outweighed the mitigation. The State argues that the trial court did not commit error because although the trial court initially denied defense counsel the opportunity to question prospective jurors about mercy during the first stage of jury selection, the trial court allowed counsel to question jurors about their willingness to consider mercy during the second stage of jury selection. We agree. During the first stage of voir dire, defense counsel asked two prospective jurors whether the consideration of mercy had a part in the sentencing proceedings. After the first juror stated that he could not consider mercy, defense counsel challenged him for cause, which the trial court denied. Defense counsel then asked another juror the same question. The prosecutor objected, and the trial court sustained the objection and restricted defense counsel's questions regarding mercy. Later during voir dire, defense counsel asked the trial court to reconsider the ruling restricting his ability to inquire about mercy. The trial court agreed to allow defense counsel to revisit the issue of mercy during the second stage of voir dire. After this ruling, although still during the first stage, defense counsel questioned three more prospective jurors about mercy without objection from the State, and then asked two different groups of prospective jurors during the second stage whether they could consider mercy. None of the prospective jurors indicated that they could not consider mercy in the case. Orme concedes that the trial court allowed him to question prospective jurors about mercy and he did, in fact, ask the jurors about mercy. However, he argues that because the parties resumed their argument about the role of mercy during the second stage of jury selection, he was never able to raise the issue of mercy afterwards due to the trial court's ruling. The record demonstrates that after defense counsel asked the last set of fourteen jurors about mercy, the parties resumed their argument about the role of mercy. The trial court ended the argument by ruling that the prosecutor could not bring up the issue of mercy unless defense counsel raised the issue. Orme now argues that he was never able to raise the issue of mercy after this decision because he did not want the State to make improper comments about the governor being the only one who could exercise mercy. [5] However, we find the issue is not preserved for appeal because after the trial court's decision, Orme did not attempt to question the jurors about mercy for the rest of voir dire. Accordingly, relief is not warranted. The more troubling issue is the prosecutor's comments during voir dire on how the trial judge could not consider mercy in his decision and the governor was the only person who could exercise mercy by way of a clemency hearing. We find that these statements by the prosecutor were improper and misleading to the jury. Thus, the trial court erred in overruling defense counsel's objection to the prosecutor's statements. However, we hold that the statements constitute harmless error because none of the prospective jurors indicated they could not consider mercy, the jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of eleven to one, and the trial court found the three aggravators outweighed the relatively weak mitigation. Accordingly, relief is not warranted.