Opinion ID: 1861054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Voir Dire Examination Regarding Testimony of Coconspirators

Text: Evans also asserts that the State engaged in improper questioning during group voir dire regarding the subject of a plea bargain. The State counters that it was not preconditioning jurors or lending credibility to its witnesses, but rather was attempting to find those jurors with biases. We agree with the State and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to interrogate the potential jurors about whether they harbored any biases against a witness who had accepted a plea bargain. Whether a trial judge should have allowed interrogation of jurors on specific subjects is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Davis v. State, 698 So.2d 1182, 1190 (Fla.1997) (citing Farina v. State, 679 So.2d 1151, 1154 (Fla.1996)). This Court has explained: The purpose of the voir dire proceeding is to secure an impartial jury for the accused. Consequently, the possible bias of a member of the jury venire which ... might affect the fairness of the trial of the accused, is clearly a proper ground of inquiry during this proceeding. Lewis v. State, 377 So.2d 640, 642-43 (Fla.1979) (citations omitted). The questioning challenged by Evans in this case is similar to the questioning challenged in Moody v. State, 418 So.2d 989, 993 (Fla.1982). In that case, the prosecutor asked prospective jurors during voir dire whether they would never return a verdict of guilty under any circumstances where the evidence presented was from a witness who was present at the scene of the crime and who was granted immunity by the State. Id. The defendant claimed that this question asked the jurors to prejudge the credibility of a witness. See id. This Court rejected the defendant's argument because [t]he question did not call for prejudgment of the case and did not amount to asking the venire to prejudge the credibility of a witness, but rather it was asked to determine the possible bias of any member of the jury venire which might affect the fairness of the trial. Id. In this case, the State's case against Evans strongly depended upon the jury believing the testimony of Waddell, who made a plea bargain. Therefore, it was proper for the State to inquire into whether any of the potential jurors would harbor any biases against a witness who had accepted a plea bargain. Moreover, when several of the potential jurors asked the State specific questions regarding the plea bargain, the State did not bolster Waddell's credibility, but instead explained that the jury should wait to view the evidence in the case. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to question jurors about possible bias during voir dire.