Opinion ID: 1577692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Voir Dire on Mitigation

Text: Appellant claims that his constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury was violated when he was unduly restricted from questioning potential jurors about intoxication as a mitigating factor. Defense counsel sought to pose the following question to prospective jurors during individual voir dire: Under the law of Kentucky, intoxication at the time of the offense is a mitigating circumstance. A mitigating circumstance is a reason to give a less severe penalty. Is intoxication a factor you, as a juror, would be able to consider in imposing a punishment, or is that not something you would be able to consider in imposing a punishment? The trial court determined that the question attempted to commit the juror in advance to a certain theory or result. Instead, during individual voir dire, the trial court defined mitigation generally and asked prospective jurors if they could follow the instructions to consider mitigating evidence. However, the trial court did permit questioning about intoxication during general voir dire. Defense counsel invited the panel to share their experiences being around friends or family that were intoxicated. A fairly lengthy discussion ensued, wherein the panel discussed the effects of intoxication on personality and whether intoxicated persons should be held responsible for their actions despite the impairment. Defense counsel also asked if any panel member would be unable to hear evidence about intoxication or drug use because of negative experiences in the past. Finally, defense counsel inquired whether evidence of intoxication would in any way impair your ability to sit and listen to the evidence and consider it in a way the Judge may instruct you to consider. [P]art of the guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 2230, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). Nonetheless, it is within the trial court's discretion to limit the scope of voir dire. Webb, 314 S.W.2d at 545. The test for abuse of discretion in this respect is whether an anticipated response to the precluded question would afford the basis for a peremptory challenge or a challenge for cause. Hayes v. Commonwealth, 175 S.W.3d 574, 583 (Ky.2005). A similar allegation of error was made in McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302 (6th Cir.1996). Defense counsel for McQueen sought to pose the following question to the jury panel: Under our situation of the law on drugs and alcohol, sometimes it can be used to mitigate the punishment, reduce the crime. Could you agree with that; understand how that could be? The trial court refused to allow the question, finding that it implicated a legal standard. However, defense counsel was able to ask other questions designed to elicit jurors' attitudes toward alcohol and drugs, such as, How do you feel about the use of alcohol? and Do you think that the use of drugs or alcohol could influence a person to do some act they otherwise would not do? The Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's limitations: McQueen had the opportunity to obtain helpful information with respect to the jurors' views of intoxication as a mitigating factor. McQueen, 99 F.3d at 1329. The permitted voir dire in this case was of the same nature as in McQueen and was sufficient to satisfy Appellant's right to make inquiry. Defense counsel asked numerous open-ended questions regarding intoxication and alcohol that successfully elicited meaningful responses from several jurors. During the discussion, many jurors candidly offered their experiences with intoxication and revealed their personal attitudes toward alcohol. The limitations imposed by the trial court did not unduly restrict Appellant's ability to identify unqualified jurors. There was no abuse of discretion.