Opinion ID: 2593661
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Questionnaire and Individual In Camera Voir Dire

Text: ¶ 28 Mead first argues the trial court abused its discretion by not using a jury questionnaire and/or individual, in camera voir dire to determine jurors' potential biases and prejudices stemming from exposure to prior media coverage of the criminal case and related civil suit in federal court. We disagree.
¶ 29 Mead's proposed jury questionnaire contained the following questions related to pre-trial publicity: (1) What if anything have you heard about this case? (2) What is the source of the information that allowed you to learn about this case? (3) Based on what you know about his case, have you formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of David Mead? (4) If yes, please explain. ¶ 30 While electing not to use the proposed jury questionnaire, the court, nevertheless, asked several questions during voir dire relating to pre-trial publicity [3] and allowed Mead's attorney to describe the facts of the case and the related civil lawsuit to the potential jurors. The trial court's questions and Mead's attorney's description of the case prompted several potential jurors to inform the trial court of their exposure to media reports relating to Pamela Mead's death. ¶ 31 While it may be advisable for a trial court to use a jury questionnaire in certain situations, the trial court has considerable latitude as to the manner and form of conducting the voir dire examination. State v. Malmrose, 649 P.2d 56, 60 (Utah 1982). We cannot say the court abused its discretion in the instant case. Indeed, as the questions asked in voir dire were substantially similar to those requested in the proposed jury questionnaire, even were we to assume the trial court erred in failing to use the proposed jury questionnaire, Mead has demonstrated no harm.
¶ 32 The trial court denied Mead's request to conduct individual, in camera voir dire with each potential juror who had prior knowledge of the case. However, the trial court did state its willingness to conduct individual voir dire if the need arose. Despite this offer, nothing in the record indicates such a need ever arose. There was, for instance, no suggestion that any particular juror would be reluctant to disclose intimate facts relating to this issue. Further, any suggestion that questions answered in front of the entire panel would taint other potential jurors was weak at best. Additionally, Mead never requested the court conduct individual, in camera voir dire for any particular, potential juror on any ground. We conclude the court's determination to conduct individual, in camera voir dire only if the need arose fell within its considerable latitude as to the manner and form of conducting the voir dire examination. Id. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.