Opinion ID: 864456
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: whether the defendant was prejudiced by

Text: REMARKS MADE BY THE BAILIFF. 11 It is clear from the record that prior to the commencement of voir dire, the members of the jury venire were placed under oath to answer truthfully the questions propounded to them. 23 ¶43. Moody argues that a bailiff's remarks within the hearing of a prospective juror during the voir dire process prejudiced him. The juror, Anita Bland, was eventually selected as a member of the trial jury in this case. Upon being informed of a possible impropriety, the trial judge took immediate action by individually interrogating Bland outside the presence of the remaining members of the jury venire, but in the presence of Moody and the attorneys. Basically, Bland testified that she heard a bailiff ask someone if he had a door covered, meaning, had a door been secured. Bland testified on more than one occasion, I knew you would have to have security because this trial was a capital case. The record reveals that the following exchange occurred: MR. PRICE: Q: Ms. Bland, the judge asked you about an inference and I am unclear exactly – did you think that the gentleman was asking that anybody was covering the door for general security purposes or just what? A: Under the circumstances, really, I would think a capital murder case, you would have to have security. Q: Did you infer from that that Mr. Moody was dangerous or anything of that nature? A: I assumed that in case if something happened, he tried to get out of the room, that is what I assumed from that. Q: Did you assume that Mr. Moody is incarcerated? A: Yes. Q: Is there any particular reason? Is it based on that comment? A: Yes, sir – no. I would have assumed that anyway. Q: You would assume that someone charged with capital murder would be incarcerated? A: Yes. 24 Q: With that assumption, is that something that you would hold against Mr. Moody in hearing this case? A: (Nods negatively). Q: Do you understand that he is presumed innocent? The state has the burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? A: Yes, sir. Q: Would you disregard that conversation that you overheard in deliberating were you seated as a juror? A: Yes, sir. MR. KIRKSEY:12 I have no questions of this witness. ¶44. When we consider the totality of Anita Bland’s sworn answers to the questions propounded to her, it is abundantly clear that Bland well expected extra security in the case, not because of any suspected dangerous propensities on the part of Moody, but because of the general nature of the case -- a capital murder case. She assumed Moody was incarcerated, not because he was a flight risk, but because he was charged with capital murder – a crime punishable by death. In the end, Bland was definite in her responses to questions that she would not be influenced by the remarks of the bailiff/guard, that she could disregard any negative inferences which could be drawn for what had occurred, that she understood that Moody was presumed innocent and that the State had the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that she could be a fair and impartial juror by deciding the case based on the evidence presented in open court and the law as given by the court. 12 Kirksey is one of Moody’s attorneys. 25 ¶45. Moody cites Rush v. State, 301 So.2d 297 (Miss. 1974), as a means by which to argue there was overzealous security in Moody's trial. In Rush, the defendant argued that because the jury briefly saw him in handcuffs he was entitled to a new trial. We did not agree. Not only did we not find the handcuffs prejudicial in Rush, but handcuffs are not even at issue in the case sub judice. The only possible similarity between Rush and the case today is that there could possibly be an inference of a dangerous defendant when one is shackled (as Rush was) and when extra security is provided (as with Moody). However, as the State points out, Judge McKenzie not only ordered that Moody not be brought into the courtroom in the presence of the jury venire while shackled, he also ordered that the number of uniformed law enforcement officials be limited. ¶46. This issue is without merit.