Opinion ID: 1781968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: the prosecutor's request of jurors during individual voir dire to give circumstances under which they would vote to inflict the death penalty violated defendant's rights under mississippi law and the united state constitution.

Text: Foster contends that the State during individual voir dire impermissibly questioned members of the venire by asking them for the particular circumstances that each would require in order to return a death sentence. The questioning, Foster argues, was designed to secure a commitment from jurors to vote for the death penalty upon the finding of a certain set of circumstances. Foster complains of three instances where veniremen were asked in some form what circumstances would you demand to be shown before you would ever return a verdict of death? First, it is noted that Rule 5.02 of the Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practice and the cases Foster cites in his favor stand for the general rule that it is reversible error to ask a juror during voir dire to commit to returning a particular verdict. Stringer v. State, 500 So.2d 928, 938 (Miss. 1986); Miss.Unif.Cr. R.Cir.Prac. 5.02. We find that the complained of questions were not designed to extract a promise from these jurors, under oath, that they would certainly vote for the death penalty given a specific set of circumstances. Individual voir dire was held with those members of the venire who had expressed opposition to or uncertainty regarding the death penalty. As to the proper limitations of such voir dire, this Court has stated: The district attorney has the right in a capital case to reasonably satisfy himself that no juror who entertains conscientious scruples against the death penalty shall remain on a jury, even though the juror may have passed the examination by the judge; and he may to a reasonable length search further into that inquiry. But in so doing he must not go to the extent of forcing what is in the nature of a committal as to what the juror or jury would do in that particular case, nor shall the examination be of such character as to introduce or create the impression that a juror will rest under the frown of official displeasure unless he returns a death verdict. Murphy v. State, 246 So.2d 920, 921 (Miss. 1971). We find nothing improper in the complained of questions and would further note that, as a result thereof, each of the three veniremen in question were peremptorily excused by the State. There is no indication of an unconstitutionally impaneled jury. This assignment is rejected as being without merit.