Opinion ID: 1389618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jury empaneling

Text: During jury voir dire the court stated the following: If the Defendant, Mr. Harding, is found guilty of First Degree Murder, the Court  that is, the Judge  without any verdict or advice from the Jury then must determine the punishment. The Court would like to know at this time whether any of you on the panel entertain conscientious or religious opinions, scruples or feelings concerning the death penalty, which would prevent you from finding the Defendant guilty, even if you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that the Defendant is, in fact, guilty of First Degree Murder? Those who answered the question affirmatively were excused. It is proper to inquire whether a prospective juror's attitude concerning the death penalty would prevent him from making an impartial decision. See State v. Clark, 126 Ariz. 428, 431, 616 P.2d 888, 891, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1067, 101 S.Ct. 796, 66 L.Ed.2d 612 (1980). Further, the question quoted above is identical in concept to the question we approved in State v. Smith, 123 Ariz. 231, 137-38, 599 P.2d 187, 193-94 (1979). Nevertheless, appellant argues that this question posed to the prospective jurors did not probe deeply enough and that the trial court thereby erred in failing to question the jurors further to determine if their oath would overcome any hesitancy on their part to be fair. We note, however, that the question was very clear, and that the only jurors excused were those that clearly answered the question affirmatively. Under the circumstances, any further questioning was unnecessary.