Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Using Exceedingly Difficult Instead of Substantially Impair During Voir Dire

Text: Juniper also claims the trial court erred by changing the standard death penalty voir dire partially through jury selection by using the phrase `exceedingly difficult' instead of `substantially impair.' Part of the way through voir dire of the potential venire, the trial judge stated, When I ask these questions[,] instead of using [`substantially impair,'] I'm going to start [using the term] [`exceedingly difficult.'] I think substantially impairedI think it's a legal term [and] I'm not sure the jurors understand what I'm talking about when I say that. Juniper's counsel responded, We don't quarrel with that but the case law does use substantially impair. The trial judge then noted, If you-all want to use it in your questions that's fine, but I've just noticed when I'm asking the question their eyes seem to glaze over when I start saying things like that. Juniper's counsel replied, That's fine. This exchange clearly shows that Juniper's counsel not only did not object to the trial court's decision to alter the voir dire language, but acquiesced to it. Consequently, Juniper has waived any right to appeal on this issue under Rule 5:25.