Opinion ID: 1090851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: James Percy Malone

Text: ¶ 33. Malone stated on his juror information card that his occupation was retired. As for his former occupation, Malone stated on the card policeman. At voir dire Malone stated, when defense counsel asked whether he had worked as an employee of a law enforcement officer agency, whether it is State, Federal, prison or jail system, or some kind of correctional institute, that he was a police officer in Drew for about twenty-one years. Then some unknown juror stated, I used to be a correctional officer, to which defense counsel replied, I believe you had mentioned that and I appreciate that. I got that down here. The State argues that this was Malone. Russell argues that this was another member of the venire, one Gregory Marlow, who identified himself as a former employee of Parchman. A review of the record reveals that Russell is probably correct. ¶ 34. Russell attaches Malone's affidavit, which states, I worked as a police officer for 20 years. Before that I worked at Parchman for one year and lived there with my family. The affidavit states nothing about what type of job Malone held at Parchman. Russell states that Malone worked as a guard. The State argues that Malone could have been doing something at Parchman besides being a guard. Neither side cites an employee verification notice from the MDOC, attached as an exhibit, which states that a Malone was a Correctional Officer I from March 11, 1974, to December 16, 1976. This information does not appear to agree with Malone's affidavit or his juror questionnaire or his testimony at trial, as this is longer than the one year Malone stated at trial. In addition, Malone stated in 1990 that he was retired, but did not say how long it had been since he had worked. Malone's juror questionnaire states that he was 67 years old in 1990. Before his retirement he was a police officer for approximately twenty years. Any job Malone held before that probably would have been sometime in the 1960s. If the employment verification notice does belong to Malone, then he must have worked for the MDOC at the same time he worked as a police officer. ¶ 35. We usually view such a question on direct appeal on denial of a motion for new trial, not some twelve years after trial. A recent example of this is our decision in Buckley v. State, 772 So.2d 1059 (Miss.2000), where Buckley alleged that a juror did not truthfully answer the question, Are you or any member of your family, related to any police or law enforcement officer, Sheriff, or what have you? Buckley alleged that he was entitled to a new trial because one juror failed to mention that her daughter was a dispatcher for the local police department one night a week. After the circuit court denied the motion for a new trial, we affirmed, stating that the test was the following: (1) whether the question was relevant to the voir dire examination; (2) whether the question was unambiguous and (3) whether the juror had substantial knowledge of the information sought to be elicited. Id. at 1064. If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, then the circuit court should determine whether prejudice to the defendant can be presumed or inferred from the circumstances. We have stated that where a full and complete response would have provided a valid basis for challenge for cause, we will presume prejudice. Greater discretion is allowed if a correct response would have allowed for a peremptory challenge. Id. at 1063. ¶ 36. The voir dire question asked in this case was, Have any of you ever worked as an employee of a Law Enforcement Office Agency, whether it is State, Federal, prison or jail system, or some kind of correctional institute? The question was relevant, unambiguous, and Malone knew he had worked at Parchman for at least one year at sometime in the past. The dispute over whether Malone worked as a guard is irrelevant, as he worked in some capacity, and that is all the question asked. ¶ 37. Defense counsel attempted to have Malone stricken for cause and was unsuccessful. Even if defense counsel had known about Malone's employment at Parchman, he could not have had him stricken for cause, as defense counsel tried such a strike on Gregory Marlow and this was denied. As for peremptory challenges, defense counsel failed to challenge Mattie Lewis, whose brother was a guard at Parchman in 1990, so defense counsel's statement that they would have peremptorily stricken Malone if they had known of his employment history is questionable. ¶ 38. Russell also states that Malone had a strong influence on the jury and its outcome. Russell's basis for this statement is the unsworn statement of Robert Pitts, who stated that one of the jurors, an ex-policeman, was very helpful on the jury. Taking into consideration all these circumstances, we find that the issue is without merit.