Opinion ID: 1671742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in excusing venire members without allowing defense counsel to fully question them.

Text: ¶ 22. The trial court excused twelve jurors during voir dire by the court. One of the jurors, Juror William Edward Medley, stated that he grew up with McFarland, went to school with McFarland, and had remained friends with McFarland throughout the years. Although he stated that could still serve as a fair and impartial juror, the trial court excused him anyway, after which the following exchange occurred: MR. SWEET: Your Honor, may we approach the bench? THE COURT: No, Sir, I told you to take it up in recess. This man says he's a friend of longstanding with Mr. McFarland, and I'm going to excuse him. MR. SWEET: Yes, Sir, but I thought he said it wouldn't be a burden for him to serve as a juror in the case. THE COURT: I excused him, Mr. Sweet. MR. SWEET: Yes, Sir, Your Honor. Another juror, Juror Roosevelt Tolliver, stated that he and McFarland had worked together, that they were friends, and that they had visited in each other's homes. Again, although he stated that his friendship with McFarland would have no influence upon him as a juror, the trial court excused him anyway, after which the following comments were made: THE COURT: As I emphasize once again to this jury, this is a period to speak the truth, the fact that anybody knows someone or knows the lawyers or someone else; that's not any reflection upon the person whatsoever. This is a period during the trial, as I have said several times, to speak the truth. Someone else knew  MR. SWEET: Your Honor, if I may just approach the bench for one moment. THE COURT: Yes, Sir. Don't make a habit of it. After the unrecorded bench conference, the trial court proceeded with its voir dire. ¶ 23. McFarland argues that the trial court erred in excusing jurors without allowing defense counsel to fully question them, citing Mack v. State, 650 So.2d 1289, 1305 (Miss. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 880, 116 S.Ct. 214, 133 L.Ed.2d 146 (1995) for the principle that trial courts must take care not to hinder a full exploration of a juror's predispositions, by hypothetical or otherwise. McFarland contends further that the trial court erred in excusing jurors who stated that they could be fair and impartial. We find that these arguments must fail. ¶ 24. We have stated that an attorney has the right to question jurors for cause after they have been determined to be qualified jurors on voir dire by the court. Peters v. State, 314 So.2d 724, 727 (Miss. 1975) (emphasis added). Furthermore, Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (1972) provides, Any juror shall be excluded, however, if the court be of the opinion that he cannot try the case impartially, and the exclusion shall not be assignable as error. (emphasis added). We have interpreted this statute literally, holding that once the judge exercised his discretion and determined that the jurors probably could not be impartial, then the determination may not be assigned on appeal as an error. Coverson v. State, 617 So.2d 642, 646 (Miss. 1993). This assignment of error therefore is procedurally barred. Furthermore, it is substantively without merit. ¶ 25. Trial judges have broad discretion to determine whether a prospective juror can be impartial  notwithstanding the juror's admission under oath that he or she can be impartial.  Coverson, 617 So.2d at 646 (emphasis added). During voir dire by the court, the trial judge excused twelve jurors  six because of their close relationship to McFarland and six who stated that they could not be fair or that they would be influenced by their close relationship to McFarland. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing these jurors. ¶ 26. McFarland also argues that the trial court erred in asking leading questions during voir dire. There are only two questions of which McFarland complains. After Juror William Edward Medley stated that he grew up with McFarland, that he and McFarland were friends, and that they had remained friends throughout the years, the trial judge asked him, Don't you feel like it would be a burden upon you to try to serve as a fair and impartial juror if you're a friend of Mr. McFarland? Juror Medley responded in the negative, but the judge excused him anyway. Then, after Juror Roosevelt Tolliver stated that he and McFarland had worked together and were friends, the trial judge asked him, I'll ask you the same question: having been associated with Mr. McFarland for some period of fifteen years and riding back, wouldn't that have some influence on you? Juror Tolliver responded in the negative, but the judge excused him as well. McFarland argues that in asking these questions, the trial judge abandoned his neutrality and became an advocate, for which he cites Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228, 1258-59 (Miss. 1995) (finding no error where prosecutor, not judge, asked leading questions during voir dire). ¶ 27. Indeed, trial judges should avoid asking leading questions during voir dire, for such questions are the tool of advocacy, not neutrality. Davis, 660 So.2d at 1258 (quoting Schwenke v. State, 768 P.2d 1031, 1033 (Wyo. 1989)). However, there were only two instances of leading questions asked by the judge in the case sub judice, and they were both asked of jurors who had already expressed close relationships with McFarland. McFarland has failed to demonstrate that the jury selected was not fair and impartial. Therefore, we find that the two isolated questions, if error, were only harmless.