Opinion ID: 1133683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to strike the venire.

Text: ś 177. Rubenstein argues the trial court denied him a fair trial by refusing to strike the venire, and this error, he contends, requires reversal of his conviction and sentence. ś 178. First, Rubenstein claims he was prejudiced by information overheard by members of the jury pool. Juror Woodward informed the trial court that she had overheard an unknown excused juror tell Juror Saucier that the case had been overturned before and that the man had committed heinous crimes and that they were trying to get a big jury pool so the lack of a juryâ jurors could not be used again to overturn the case. Rubenstein argued that jurors heard information that the case was overturned on a technicality, but the trial court correctly stated that Juror Woodward did not hear such a comment. ś 179. Rubenstein also voiced concern that an indeterminate number of jurors heard the crimes described as heinous. The trial court did not find that any other juror had knowledge of the case. [20] The only evidence in the record is that Juror Woodward, Juror Saucier, and an unknown excused juror heard the information at issue, and none of these persons served on Rubenstein's jury. Additionally, every juror stated that he or she could be fair and impartial. We find that Rubenstein was not prejudiced by the information, as none of these three potential jurors sat in judgment of his case. The trial court did not err in refusing to strike the venire, so this issue is without merit. ś 180. Rubenstein also contends that when the trial court addressed the jurors and told them the first trial resulted in a mistrial, the judge allegedly said one of the murders involv[ed] child abuse. Rubenstein claims the trial court's comments compounded the prejudice against him and amount[ed] to a judicial finding that the murder involved child abuse. ś 181. Rubenstein's complaint arises from the following statement by the trial court: What you may have speculated, first of all it is a serious case. You've just heard, it involves alleged three deaths, alleged to be three murders. One involving child abuse. That is, in and of itself, very serious matters [sic]. From the context of the statement, it is clear the trial judge meant that the State alleged one of the murders involved child abuse, not that the trial court found child abuse. Accordingly, we find that Rubenstein has mischaracterized the trial court's comments and has taken them out of context. Therefore, this issue is without merit.