Opinion ID: 2543261
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the district court improperly allow the State to ask potential jurors stake-out questions during voir dire?

Text: Johnson contends that the State asked sixteen potential jurors improper stake-out questions that caused them to pledge themselves to a future course of action and indoctrinate[d] them regarding potential issues before the evidence had been presented. He maintains that these questions denied him an impartial jury. We disagree. The purpose of jury voir dire is to discover whether a juror 'will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court.' [16] And its scope rests within the sound discretion of the district court, whose decision will be given considerable deference by this court. [17] Here, the State asked prospective jurors about their ability to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with NRS 175.554. Johnson's counsel unsuccessfully objected. We conclude that this line of questioning was within the district court's discretion to permit, and Johnson's contention is without merit.