Opinion ID: 2600675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Motion for continuance to enable the defense to review juror questionnaires

Text: Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, following return of the penalty phase verdict on November 16, 1990, that was sought to enable the defense to receive and review questionnaires that it sent to individual jurors in an attempt to ascertain (prior to the sentencing hearing set for December 17, 1990) whether any juror misconduct had occurred. The record reflects that a single juror response was received to the defense questionnaire, which was sent to the jurors on December 7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defense had not shown good cause why a continuance was necessary. Defendant has not demonstrated that any material error occurred at the penalty phase, or that he suffered prejudice at that stage of the proceedings.
The judgment is affirmed in its entirety.