Opinion ID: 853048
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Personal and Familial Criminal Histories

Text: The State argues that the post-conviction court erroneously found Gunn's misstatements regarding her personal criminal history and her siblings' criminal histories to be gross misconduct that probably harmed the defendant. As to the concealment of Gunn's brother's California murder convictions and death sentence, the State argues that any misconduct in failing to include the information in the questionnaire was cured when she mentioned him in voir dire [1] because defense counsel then had the opportunity to question Gunn about her brother. The post-conviction court characterized Gunn's voir dire disclosure of her brother's incarceration as less than candid. Appellant's App. at 811. During his testimony in the post-conviction proceedings, the defendant's trial counsel was asked, [h]ad you known that her brother had been convicted of two sexual homicides and received a death sentence which she believed that he deserved, would you have challenged her for cause? He responded, [y]es and I certainly would have struck her peremptorily. P.C.R. Tr. at 646. Later, when asked whether he would have challenged Gunn for cause based on her family's involvement with the justice system, counsel answered: That's a tough question to answer. Normally if a juror has a family with a criminal history, normally the impression would be she would favor the defense. Most people whose family members have been prosecuted feel that their family members did not get fair treatment from the State. I would want to question her further about what feelings she had about the entire justice process caused by her family's involvement in these cases and her own personal involvement. P.C.R. Tr. at 647. The State argues that Gunn's questionnaire responses relating to her conviction for driving while intoxicated and her siblings' arrests do not amount to gross misconduct. As to Gunn's questionnaire response deliberately concealing that her brother had been convicted and sentenced to death in California, the State argues that she corrected the omission during jury selection by stating that she had a brother in prison in California. It is correct that Gunn truthfully answered what she was asked on voir dire. Although she did not volunteer her brother's death sentence, the questions asked of her did not seek this information. Jurors cannot be expected to answer questions they are not asked, no matter how relevant the answers may be to the lawyers and the trial court. While Gunn's voir dire answers may have been literally truthful, however, this does not excuse the fact that her brother's prior convictions and death sentence were intentionally obscured by her deliberate dishonesty in responding to the questionnaire regarding family criminal charges. The post-conviction court did not err in finding this to be gross misconduct.