Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Juror Admonition

Text: Appellant claims that the trial court continually failed to adequately admonish the jury pool. During individual voir dire, the trial court admonished each prospective juror not to discuss the case with anyone, but did not give any specific admonition to avoid media coverage. After the first day of trial, the trial court told the empanelled jury to avoid newspaper and television coverage of the case, but did not specifically mention radio coverage. Prior to another three day recess, the trial court simply told the jury that all prior admonitions still applied. Though the issue is unpreserved, Appellant now argues that these admonitions were insufficient and in violation of the mandates of RCr 9.70. RCr 9.70 does not apply to the jury pool; rather, the admonitions required by the rule apply only after the jury has been selected and sworn to try the case. St. Clair, 140 S.W.3d at 532. Furthermore, it was not error for the trial court to admonish the empanelled jury by reference. RCr 9.70 specifically permits such method. Regardless, Appellant has not provided any indication that the jury conducted itself contrary to the admonition and, therefore, any supposed error is harmless. See Salinas v. Commonwealth, 84 S.W.3d 913, 917 (Ky.2002). [2] Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the trial court gave numerous, detailed admonitions throughout the course of this lengthy trial. Thus, while RCr 9.70 requires an admonition at each adjournment, in the absence of some showing of misconduct, substantial compliance with [the rule] will suffice. Commonwealth v. Messex, 736 S.W.2d 341, 342 (Ky.1987). The error, if any, was undoubtedly harmless.