Opinion ID: 2188660
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was defendant tried by a fair and impartial jury?

Text: Defendant raises various challenges to the selection of his jury. He asserts that the trial court applied an incorrect standard in the death-qualification of the jurors. Those issues have been mooted by our disposition and have been discussed extensively by this Court. See State v. Biegenwald, 126 N.J. 1, 594 A. 2d 172 (1991) ( Biegenwald IV); State v. Dixon, 125 N.J. 223, 593 A. 2d 266 (1991); State v. Williams, 113 N.J. 393, 550 A. 2d 1172 (1988) ( Williams II). No further discussion is required. We are satisfied as well that the use of an unsworn jury questionnaire as a preliminary basis for selecting jurors does not violate our jury-selection procedures. See State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420, 454, 585 A. 2d 864 (1991) (discussing use of questionnaire). Each of the jurors was sworn and examined under oath in respect of the answers set forth in the questionnaire. A trial court should take care to assure that in an individual voir dire, a juror affirms that his or her statements on the questionnaire are true. Finally, defendant argues that the trial court's failure to question potential jurors concerning possible racial prejudice against defendant constituted plain error. Yet, no one has suggested that this crime was of an interracial nature, State v. McDougald, 120 N.J. 523, 554, 577 A. 2d 419 (1990), and nothing in the record indicates that racial issues were `inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial.' State v. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 246, 524 A. 2d 188 (quoting Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 597, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 1021, 47 L.Ed. 2d 258, 264 (1976)). Under those circumstances, we find that the voir dire on racial bias was adequate.