Opinion ID: 854105
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Questioning of Jurors at Voir Dire

Text: Barker next contends that the State's questioning of jurors during voir dire violated his rights to a fair trial, to an impartial jury, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Indiana and federal constitutions. [6] Specifically, he contends that the State improperly asked prospective jurors whether or not they could impose the death sentence if certain of the statutory aggravating circumstances were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Barker says that the prosecutor's questions had the effect of obtaining a commitment from jurors to impose the death penalty if the State proved its case at the guilt phase. This contention is moot because, as explained below, a new sentencing phase is required. Barker also contends that the questions were improper under general principles of voir dire conduct. Barker does not point to any instance in the record where he objected to this questioning, and we find none. Accordingly this contention is waived. Ingram v. State, 547 N.E.2d 823, 829 (Ind.1989).