Opinion ID: 523156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: improper use of hypotheticals during voir dire

Text: 42 In Ground for Relief Four, McCoy asserts that the State violated his right to due process when it used improper hypotheticals in voir dire to distinguish between the statutory terms intentional and deliberate. McCoy alleges that this confused the distinction between the terms and led the jury to automatically answer the special issue on deliberateness in the affirmative after finding McCoy guilty of intentional capital murder. 43 Assuming, arguendo, that such hypotheticals would constitute a violation of due process, McCoy is still not entitled to relief based on mere conclusory allegations. Schlang v. Heard, 691 F.2d 796, 799 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 951, 103 S.Ct. 2419, 77 L.Ed.2d 1310 (1983). The state habeas court noted that McCoy failed to point to one such misleading hypothetical. Ex parte McCoy, No. 377288-A (Finding of Fact 63). The federal district court examined the one allegedly improper hypothetical that was identified in McCoy's federal filing. (See Transcript, Volume III, pp. 301-18). The federal district court found no evidence of impropriety in the hypothetical to which Petitioner objects. Likewise, we have examined the allegedly improper hypothetical addressed to excluded venire member Linda Tucker, and we find no statements that would mislead the prospective jurors. Accordingly, we deny relief on Ground Four. 44