Opinion ID: 2118216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation on Voir Dire

Text: The defendant contends that the trial court prevented him from ascertaining prospective jurors' attitudes on capital punishment. On the morning of the first day of trial, the State made an oral motion in limine. In its motion, the State sought to prevent either side from asking prospective jurors about their views on the death penalty in extreme cases, such as if Hitler were on trial or if their child was the victim. The trial judge agreed that neither side should begin voir dire with extreme examples and then continue with examples of either increasing or decreasing severity. The defendant claims that this ruling prevented him from asking prospective jurors whether their consideration would be affected by the defendant being black and the victim being white. The defendant indicates two instances where the trial judge sustained a State's objection to the defendant's questioning of a prospective juror. The trial judge sustained the objections because the defendant's questions asked the prospective jurors how they would vote in the present case. Record at 588. Questions which seek to shape a favorable jury by deliberate exposure to the substantive issues in the case are improper. Von Almen v. State (1986), Ind., 496 N.E.2d 55. The ruling on the motion in limine did not prevent the defendant from asking about possible racial prejudice of prospective jurors. In fact, the defense counsel did ask the jury as a group about any such prejudice. Record at 576. The trial court did not deny the defendant the opportunity to make reasonable inquiry regarding the prospective jurors' attitudes regarding the death penalty.