Opinion ID: 2199758
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The State's examination of veniremen upon the voir dire.

Text: In line with their objection to the court's interrogation of prospective jurors as to their ability to return a verdict requiring the death sentence, the defendants also object to similar questions to the veniremen by the prosecutor and the systematic exclusion of all jurors whose answers indicated that they did not believe in capital punishment. This is substantially the same argument already advanced and disposed of under B, supra, and in so far as the State's interrogation of the veniremen is concerned, we need note only that it has a right to ask for the death penalty and to inquire as to a prospective juror's attitude respecting the imposition of that penalty. State v. Bunk, supra, at page 468. However, counsel contends that prejudicial error was committed in permitting the State by this method to select only jurors who could impose only the death verdict against all four of these defendants, and this gave the State the right of selection of a special class of jurors who by their answers had practically pretold their judgment of the defendants both as to guilt and punishment. The State is, of course, not entitled to a special class of jurors who come within the specification cited, and, if these contentions correctly portray what actually took place, palpably there would have been glaring error requiring a reversal. The record, however, does not substantiate such a situation. Rather, the record shows nothing more than an attempt by the State to eliminate from the jury those who were unable to render a death verdict, which, as we have already noted, was within the State's prerogative. Certainly, the method employed did not bring forth only jurors who could impose only the death verdict against all four of these defendants, as is evidenced by the verdict against Vega, which included a recommendation of life imprisonment. To repeat, we find nothing in the questions propounded which would have given the prospective jurors the impression that it was their duty to sentence these defendants to death. It was merely a proper probing within judicial limits to ascertain if their beliefs and convictions would permit the return of a verdict in accord with the present law of our State.