Opinion ID: 2625875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restriction on Jury Voir Dire

Text: Defendant cites four instances in which the court assertedly restricted jury voir dire. [10] In only one of these cases, however, does the record show the court actually cut short the defense attorney's questioning on a topic. During the general voir dire of Prospective Juror N., the defense questioned her in some detail about the murder of two of her cousins, which occurred in 1958 when N. was 19 years old. N. stated that the killer had been apprehended, had been found not guilty by reason of insanity and confined in a psychiatric hospital. The following exchange ensued: Mr. Maple: All right. Had he been in some sort of relationship with your cousins? Prospective Juror N.: They were all mutually investing in The Court: Just a moment. What is the relevance of this, counsel? Mr. Maple: Well The Court: Let's go on to another subject matter. Maple then asked the prospective juror whether knowing what happened to her cousins would affect her ability to judge this case fairly. She replied in the negative. Defendant contends it was error to cut off defense counsel's line of questioning, which assertedly might have revealed similarities between the murder of N.'s cousins and the present case. Perhaps, defendant suggests, N. would have answered by saying that the cousins were murdered to prevent them from testifying against the murderer. But N.'s actual answers that the killer and victims had been in business together and the killer was found to be insane at the timedo not suggest any particular similarity to the present case. Given the remoteness in time of the cousins' killing (32 years before this trial) and the lack of any apparent close similarity, we conclude the court's exercise of discretion to expedite the examination ( People v. Wright, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 419, 276 Cal.Rptr. 731, 802 P.2d 221) did not affect defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury ( People v. Bittaker (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1046, 1086, 259 Cal.Rptr. 630, 774 P.2d 659) or the reliability of the penalty verdict.