Opinion ID: 1763919
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the claim of error during the voir dire

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court committed error in his refusal to allow prospective jurors to be questioned as to the verdicts of juries on which they previously served. During voir dire of a prospective juror, defense counsel asked her [w]hat was the verdict in the second degree murder case in which she had been a juror earlier in the month. The State objected and the trial judge sustained the objection. Defendant asserts that this was the erroneous ruling by which he was prejudiced. In State v. Holmes, 347 So.2d 221, 223 (La.1977) this court, in overruling prior jurisprudence, held that ... it is permissible for defendant to ask prospective jurors during voir dire questions such as: (1) Have you ever served on a criminal jury before? (2) What was the charge in that case? (3) What was the verdict in the case?, etc. In light of this decision, the trial court's restriction here appears to have been error. However, as set forth in State v. Vinet, 352 So.2d 684, 687 (La.1977): Undoubtedly the defense is entitled to wide latitude in examining prospective jurors. This right is, however, to be exercised within the discretion of the trial judge who determines the scope of the examination under the prevailing facts and circumstances. La.Code Crim.Pro. art. 786. And when the question arises whether voir dire examination has been unduly restricted, the disallowance of a proper question is not automatically reversible. In evaluating the fairness of the ruling the entire examination must be considered. State v. Monroe, 329 So.2d 193 (La.1976); State v. Jones, 315 So.2d 650 (1975). (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case the record does not provide the entire voir dire of this nor any other juror. Only the questioning that was subject to the objection is provided in the record. Lacking a full record of voir dire, a determination of the nature and seriousness of the trial judge's error in restricting the defendant's examination appears premature. In any case, counsel makes no allegation that the trial court otherwise curtailed voir dire, and the restriction here, standing alone, does not appear to deprive defendant of his right to full voir dire under LSA-Const., Art. I, § 17. Indeed, against the background of the facts of this case and considering the extensive evidence against the two defendants, it is virtually impossible to conceive of any response by the juror to the blocked question which, under any reasonable consideration, would have made a jot or a tittle of difference in the possible outcome of the case. If there was error, therefore, it essentially was harmless error. The argument of substantial error with regard to the voir dire does not support any claim of denial of due process.