Opinion ID: 1690710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: because of leading questions by the trial judge during the selection, doss's rights under the united states and mississippi constitutions and mississippi law were violated.

Text: ś 42. Doss concedes that a trial judge is responsible for conducting a significant portion of the voir dire, Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 128 (Miss. 1991), but nevertheless asserts that the trial judge asked improper leading questions which led to Doss having a jury lacking in impartiality. This form of questioning allegedly violated his rights under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article 3, Sections 26, and 28 of the Mississippi Constitution and principles of Mississippi law relating to voir dire. The examples given by Doss are the following: 1st E.g., (Trial Court is conducting voir dire of all jurors who indicated that they knew the victim or any of his family members.) BY THE COURT: Okay. Anyone else now? Then going back to the next row, starting with Mr. Layton. Anyone? All right, perhaps ya'll should start standing now. Mrs. Lundy? BY JUROR JUDY M. (MRS. MITCHELL) LUNDY: Yes, sir. I didn't know Robert but I have known Bobby and Mabry (victim's grandparents) for years. BY THE COURT: All right. Again, you've known them, as you would so many people in this community, having lived here all your life. Would it pose any problem for you here today? Is it a close, personal friendship, or simply to know who they are, and certainly be friends with them, but would it pose any problem? BY JUROR LUNDY: Friends, but not real close friends. BY THE COURT: All right friends. You know who they are but you don't see each other frequently. I take it you're telling me you could be fair and impartial, and that you would not [be][sic] affected by it. BY JUROR LUNDY: No, sir. BY THE COURT: You're saying you would not be affected. BY JUROR LUNDY: I would not be. BY THE COURT: Thank you very much. Going on down that row, was there another hand? Yes ma'am. ś 43. The other alleged leading question by the trial judge concerning pre-trial publicity is as follows: 2nd E.g., (The judge here was asking jurors about what they had heard about the case.) BY THE COURT: Thank you very much. There was a hand all the way in the back. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Spence? BY JUROR BARBARA ANN SPENCE: My daughter asked Gene Bell about it, and I don't know anything about it, as far as the particulars or anything, but I have heard some statements from Mr. Bell. BY THE COURT: And, by Mr. Bell, you mean Bobby Bell? BY JUROR SPENCE: Bobby Bell. BY THE COURT: All right. Would that statement have been made in a social setting, or where would that statement have been made? BY JUROR SPENCE: Made in front of some people at the softball park. BY THE COURT: Again, at a softball field. Now, that would have been in a larger group or just overheard, or something like that. Now, would that in any way have affected you here today? BY JUROR SPENCE: Not as far as my judgment about it. BY THE COURT: No. You have formed no opinion, having heard that. Is that correct, Ms. Spence? BY JUROR SPENCE: No, sir, I have not. BY THE COURT: Thank you very much. All right, yes, Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith, excuse me, but you may have already indicated your problem because of your relationship. Thank you. As a pastor. All right. Anyone else, now? So, that would leave the rest of you having heard about this from the street talk and people, and that sort of thing, as you work; something like that somebody may have brought it up. I take it for those of you who raised your hand, there's nothing about what you've heard about it â and, of course, when it occurred you may have heard a lot of talk. But, it's been about two years, so it certainly has died down. No one is affected by that I take it. Is that correct? All right, no one in this panel, then, is affected by anything that they have heard, seen or read about this event. ś 44. The State contends that this alleged error is without merit and procedurally barred. The record does not reflect a contemporaneous objection by defense counsel. There is also no basis asserted by the defense that it was prohibited from asking any questions to determine juror disqualifications. Accordingly, the State is correct in its position that this alleged error is procedurally barred and without merit. Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1301 (Miss. 1994); Moawad v. State, 531 So.2d 632, 635 (Miss. 1988).