Opinion ID: 852371
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Changing From Individualized to Group Voir Dire

Text: The defendant also contends that the trial court erred by changing the mode of voir dire from individual to group questioning of prospective jurors. This change, he asserts generally, exposed members of the jury panels to grossly prejudicial opinions and statements. Br. of Appellant at 16. Two days before the trial began, the trial judge informed counsel that, in light of the broadcast publicity regarding unidentified events of last week, the questioning of prospective jurors regarding the death penalty and publicity would be done individually, away from other prospective jurors. But the trial judge quickly recognized that [a]t the rate we[']re going, it will be months, not days, before we get a jury picked, Tr. at 528, and modified that plan following lunch recess on the first day of voir dire. The court explained that henceforth the only individual voir dire will be on the issue of pretrial publicity and that everybody else will be voir dired together on the death penalty questions. Id. This new procedure was then implemented despite the defense's general objection on due process grounds. Id. at 529. Other than his general trial objection to the judge's change in format, however, the defendant does not identify any particular objection made during the ensuing voir dire asserting improper exposure of prospective jurors to prejudicial statements. He does not assert on appeal any claim that specific jurors were permitted to serve following a trial court failure to grant a defense challenge for cause arising out of any such incidents. A trial court has broad discretionary power to regulate the form and substance of voir dire. Kalady v. State, 462 N.E.2d 1299, 1307 (Ind.1984). Individually sequestered voir dire is not mandated in any case under Indiana law, including capital cases, absent highly unusual or potentially damaging circumstances. Holmes v. State, 671 N.E.2d 841, 854 (Ind. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 849, 118 S.Ct. 137, 139 L.Ed.2d 85 (1997); Brown v. State, 563 N.E.2d 103, 105-06 (Ind.1990); Lowery v. State, 547 N.E.2d 1046, 1049 (Ind.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 217, 112 L.Ed.2d 176 (1990). The trial court may structure voir dire to meet discrete circumstances, but does not abuse its discretion in managing voir dire if the defense fails to bring such discrete circumstances to the court's attention. Holmes, 671 N.E.2d at 854. The defendant has not established reversible error in the trial court's modification of the format for questioning potential jurors in this case.