Opinion ID: 2284003
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Voir Dire Examination of Jurors

Text: Although the indictment was for murder, the State did not demand the death penalty. Yet the interrogation of prospective jurors was excessively prolix and eight days passed before the jury box was filled. The situation was not unusual. Records that have come to us on appeal in recent times, in criminal cases particularly, reveal a trial-bar practice of voir dire examination of jurors at inordinate length and on improper subjects. The prevalence of the practice, with its unnecessary trial delays, and its adverse effect upon already heavily burdened trial calendars, has moved us in this case to draw some restrictive guidelines for future control of the jury-drawing process. Of course in doing so we shall deal with the specific objection to the limitation imposed by the trial court upon defense counsel's questioning. As has been noted above, Manley had been convicted previously of atrocious assault and battery arising out of beating a young woman. On the first day of the voir dire defense counsel asked questions centering about the previous conviction of crime. A typical question follows: Q. If during the course of this trial there appears in evidence or it becomes evident to you that this defendant has once before been convicted of a crime, in fact, atrocious assault and battery, and that this element is admitted under the Judge's instructions for the purpose  for a limited purpose, would you be able to follow the Judge's instructions and use it only for that limited purpose? Two prospective jurors who were asked the question (without objection) were accepted. At the end of that day, the trial judge announced he would not allow further questions of the same kind unless counsel would indicate an intention to put defendant on the witness stand in his defense. A long colloquy ensued in which the reason for the ruling became clear. The judge pointed out that if the defendant elected not to testify, the fact of his previous criminal conviction would not become evidential in the case. So, if the jurors were informed before their selection of the 1963 atrocious assault and battery and thereafter defendant did not take the stand, they would have in their minds facts probably prejudicial to the defendant. And he indicated concern as to whether the jurors would eliminate such facts from their minds while deliberating upon their verdict  even if he instructed them not to consider any such voir dire questions or the facts contained therein. He was also troubled that in spite of his instructions to be given at the end of the case, the jurors would wonder why, after Manley had admitted the previous conviction in the preliminary questioning, he had not taken the stand in defense of or to deny the presently charged similar offense. The judge felt that since the fact of previous conviction would not get before the jury if defendant did not testify, defendant should not be allowed to endanger himself and his case by volunteering the damaging data. In short, he considered himself obliged to protect defendant against the probable harmful consequences of his own mistake. During the discussion defense counsel's position was that he could not say whether defendant would testify, no decision having been made on the subject. Consequently the judge ruled over objection that he would not permit any further questions to prospective jurors which referred to defendant's previous atrocious assault and battery conviction. In addition the judge felt he had to eliminate from the case the already existing possibility of prejudice stemming from defendant's acceptance of the two jurors who had been informed of the previous criminal conviction. Accordingly he excused them and instructed counsel to make a fresh start the next morning. This was done and ultimately the box was filled with acceptable jurors who had not been informed of the defendant's conviction. As it turned out, defendant did take the stand in his defense at which time the previous conviction of atrocious assault and battery was introduced by his attorney on direct examination. At the conclusion of the case, the court in its charge dealt with the matter in classic fashion, advising the jury that such evidence was admitted only on defendant's credibility, and that it was not to be and could not be considered as evidence of guilt of the crime for which he was being tried. It is conceded that the charge furnished the proper advice and instruction to the jury on the matter. On this appeal defendant claims the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to inform prospective jurors of defendant's previous criminal conviction and to ascertain from them whether they could and would follow and apply the court's instruction that such evidence was admitted for a limited purpose and should be used by the jury only for that purpose. He claims the ruling denied him a fair trial because of the prejudicial impact that evidence of the similar prior conviction was liable to have on the minds of the jurors when determining guilt. In his brief he concedes that a risk was being taken in putting the questions if he did not take the witness stand. He asserts he was prepared to take the risk and since he was the only one who could possibly be hurt by the inquiry, he should have been allowed to pursue it. He maintains also that before making a decision to testify in defense, he was entitled to satisfy himself by a probing interrogation that jurors who were accepted would follow the court's direction as to the only proper evidentiary force of his previous conviction. Obviously, if a defendant does not testify, previous conviction of crime is not admissible to attack his credibility. Compare, People v. Sanchez, 35 Cal. 2 d 522, 219 P. 2 d 913, (1950). In this event no charge of error could be predicated upon a refusal to allow defendant to interrogate jurors about such conviction. If he is allowed to admit a previous conviction of crime on voir dire questioning and then he does not testify, he incurs an unnecessary and perhaps substantial risk of prejudice to his defense. Consequently we agree with the trial court that if a defendant does not testify after informing the jurors on the v oir dire of his previous conviction of a similar crime, he may have exposed himself to a greater risk of prejudice than would normally follow a failure to testify. Psychologically it is dangerous to assume that under ordinary circumstances jurors do not draw an adverse inference on the subject of guilt if testimony directly inculpating a defendant stands uncontradicted when the case is submitted to them for decision. It is even more dangerous to assume that this inference will not be aggravated if, during the process of selecting the jury, the defendant informs the prospective jurors that he has a criminal record. Whether he should be allowed to do this, without stating at least a presently existing intention to testify, is a matter which in our judgment is committed to the discretion of the trial judge. See State v. Sullivan, 43 N.J. 209 (1964); N.J.S. 2 A :78-4; R.R. 4:48-1. Defendant recognized this for he suggests that the issue for determination is whether under the circumstances present the court abused its discretion in limiting the questioning of the prospective jurors in the manner described. Research has disclosed no case in New Jersey dealing with the propriety of voir dire interrogation with respect to a juror's willingness or ability to use evidence of the defendant's previous conviction of crime only in evaluating his credibility. Other jurisdictions have considered the problem. For example, in People v. Lexow, 23 Ill. 2 d 541, 179 N.E. 2 d 683 (1962) this question was asked: If, during the course of this trial, sir, you were to learn that these defendants have been convicted of a felony, would that fact start you off with a feeling of prejudice to the extent that you might feel that because they were guilty once before they would have to be guilty in this case? The juror replied: I don't know how to answer the question. The trial court declared the question improper and instructed the jury to disregard it. The ruling was sustained on appeal. In People v. Louzon, 338 Mich. 146, 61 N.W. 2 d 52, 57 (1953) the questions were: If, in the course of this trial it were to develop that any one or all of these defendants had been convicted of former offenses, would that fact prejudice you against them in any degree? Do you feel that you can determine the guilt or innocence of these defendants on a basis solely of facts presented here pertaining to this case only, and be entirely uninfluenced by any evidence of former police records? Their exclusion was upheld primarily on the ground that the presentations failed to recognize that if the defendants testified, the jurors could consider previous convictions in judging their credibility as witnesses. In Manning v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 367, 123 P. 1029, 1030 (1912) the question was: Mr. Kelly, if it should develop in the trial of this case that the defendant had at one time prior in his lifetime been convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and that the case was now pending in the Criminal Court of Appeals of this state, would that have any effect or bearing upon you in rendering a verdict in this case? The trial court's refusal to permit the inquiry was approved because if the conviction were shown on cross-examination of the defendant, it would have probative force on the issue of his credibility; also, if defendant offered evidence of good character for peace, it would be competent for the state to show the conviction on cross-examination or in rebuttal. Therefore the conviction would have a legitimate effect or bearing upon the jury's deliberations in the case. Thus the form of the question was improper. On the other hand, in People v. Ranney, 213 Cal. 70, 1 P. 2 d 423 (1931) after counsel advised the court that defendant intended to testify in his own behalf, he endeavored to interrogate prospective jurors as to whether they would presume guilt from the fact of defendant's previous conviction of crime. The prosecutor's objection was sustained. The defendant did testify and his earlier convictions were proved. His conviction was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court of California held the questioning was proper and should have been allowed. It went on to say that while, if standing alone, the error might not justify a reversal, yet, when taken with other errors in the instructions to the jury reversal was required. In discussing the matter the court said: Whether or not a prospective juror will be influenced by knowledge of any such previous offense, whether he will be governed by the rule of law which rigidly excludes such a consideration, and whether or not if chosen as a juror, he will obey an instruction by the court to dismiss from his mind all consideration of any separate and different offense of which he may have obtained knowledge in any way, except for purposes of impeachment, is a question of vital importance to an accused person in the circumstances of the defendant here. 1 P. 2 d at 425. The questions, however, would have to be in proper form. To ask the juror if the conviction makes no impression on him would be objectionable. People v. Knight, 44 Cal. App. 2 d 887, 113 P. 2 d 226, 229 (1941). In People v. Hosier, 132 App. Div. 146, 116 N.Y.S. 911 (1909), affirmed 196 N.Y. 506, 89 N.E. 1107, the defendant was indicted for grand larceny in the first degree. To prove guilt the state was required to establish two elements: (1) that defendant was guilty of the specific theft charged, and (2) that he had been convicted previously of grand larceny in the second degree. It being apparent therefore that the state would prove defendant's first conviction, his counsel attempted to question the veniremen as to whether they would be influenced in arriving at a verdict of guilt or innocence by the former conviction. On objection by the state the trial court refused to allow the inquiry and on appeal defendant's conviction was set aside. The Appellate Division ruled that since the state had to prove the prior conviction irrespective of whether defendant testified, the exclusion was erroneous. It said: If a juror was so constituted that in determining the question of the guilt or innocence of a defendant of the crime charged he would not be able to eliminate the impression of guilt produced upon his mind by the fact of a former conviction so that it would influence his determination of the guilt of the defendant of the crime charged, he could not try that issue impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant;   . 116 N.Y.S. at 914. See also Staggs v. State, 55 Okl. Cr. 268, 29 P. 2 d 135 (1934). As we have said, both our existing practice rule R.R. 4:48-1, and the statute N.J.S. 2 A :78-4, vest discretion in trial courts with respect to preliminary questioning of prospective jurors. The rule applies to questioning about a defendant's previous conviction of crime. In the unusual case before us, if defendant had indicated a present intention to testify in his defense, it would have been within the court's discretion (as an exception to the general restrictions outlined herein) to permit voir dire interrogation as to whether jurors could and would follow an instruction by the court that defendant's earlier criminal conviction could not be considered as any evidence whatever of his guilt of the offense for which he was being tried, and could be considered by them only in evaluating the truthfulness of his testimony at the present trial. We recognize the almost unavoidable psychological impact on the layman-juror of evidence of a defendant's conviction of similar crimes. It may be a lot to ask of him that he put aside an almost common impulse to regard earlier proven proclivity toward commission of similar crimes as some indication of guilt of the offense presently charged against him. But as long as former conviction of crime remains admissible on the cross-examination of the accused or otherwise ( N.J.S. 2A:81-12), jurors have to be told their consideration of such conviction must be limited entirely to the issue of his credibility. And, in administering the criminal law the courts must rely upon the jurors' ability and willingness to follow the limiting instruction without cavil or question. See, State v. Obstein, 52 N.J. 516, 527 n. 1 (1968); State v. Hawthorne, 49 N.J. 130 (1967); State v. Cormier, 46 N.J. 494, 508 (1966). As suggested hereafter, however, we believe use of hypothetical questions on subjects usually covered in a court's charge should be supervised carefully and rarely allowed. But, here Manley would not even say he had a present intention of becoming a witness in his own behalf. As a result the conscientious trial judge in the interest of avoiding the danger of prejudice to him, self-inflicted or otherwise, declined to allow the inquiry to be pursued. As revealed by the colloquy with counsel he was acutely aware that proof of a prior conviction of crime, especially of a similar one, is fraught with danger of prejudice to a defendant on the issue of guilt. But, he knew also that ordinarily a defendant subjects himself to that risk only if he becomes a witness. In such event, the sole palliative provided by law is the judge's instruction or charge to the jury limiting the use of the conviction to the issue of credibility alone. Although judges expect, as they must if our judicial system is to survive, that conscientious jurors will respect and follow the instruction, it is not unseemly for judges in the exercise of discretion to prevent exposure to the risk entirely unless at the time the problem arises the exposure appears to be a necessary incident of the trial. So here, the trial judge obviously felt that by refusing to allow defendant to admit the previous conviction while questioning prospective jurors, he was protecting defendant against a possible double risk of prejudice. That is, he felt (1) that as soon as defendant unnecessarily admitted his guilt of a previous similar offense, an inference adverse to his defense in this case would probably arise, and (2) that if defendant thereafter did not take the witness stand in the face of uncontradicted evidence inculpating him in the offense being tried, it would be doubly difficult to overcome a jury impression that defendant's actions in their totality indicated a consciousness of guilt. In the judge's view such danger could be avoided or at least minimized by restricting the voir dire examination in the manner described. Under the circumstances we cannot say the ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the evidence of Manley's guilt was overwhelming. In his testimony and his voluntary confession he admitted participation in the attack on the victim. There was ample corroborating evidence. The trial court fairly and adequately instructed the jury on the subject of their duty to use the evidence of defendant's criminal record on the issue of credibility alone. There can be no assumption that the jury did not faithfully follow the admonition. See State v. Obstein, supra ; State v. Cormier, supra ; Clark v. Piccillo, 75 N.J. Super. 123, 133 ( App. Div. 1962). Our study of the record satisfies us that defendant suffered neither error nor prejudice from the curtailment of the interrogation of the jurors. People v. Cole, 8 Mich. App. 250, 154 N.W. 2 d 579 (1967); People v. Louzon, supra, 61 N.W. 2 d, at 57; People v. Lexow, supra, 179 N.E. 2 d, at 684; People v. Knight, supra, 113 P. 2 d, at 229; Staggs v. State, supra, 29 P. 2 d, at 136.