Opinion ID: 2085891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reading of Death Penalty Information in Voir Dire

Text: We first take up an issue not raised by the parties. The trial court began the voir dire, before any questioning had occurred, by reading both the charging information and the death penalty information to all prospective jurors. Specifically, prospective jurors were informed, verbatim, of the four aggravating circumstances the State had pleaded against Thompson in the death penalty information. This occurred with the apparent assent of all counsel. One of the aggravating circumstances was Thompson's prior conviction of the murder of Wesley Crandall Jr., discussed in more detail below. [4] Although it was proper to inform prospective jurors of the crimes charged, the trial court erred in advising the jury of the death penalty information before the sentencing phase. There is enormous potential for prejudice in the guilt phase if the jury is permitted to know from the outset, in a murder case, that the defendant is a convicted killer. For this reason, it has long been established that prospective jurors are not to know of prior convictions until the penalty phase. Brewer v. State, 275 Ind. 338, 367-68, 417 N.E.2d 889, 905-06 (1981); Evans v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1251, 1259 (Ind.1990) (citing Brewer ). Brewer noted that, as in habitual offender proceedings, the death penalty information must be pleaded on a separate page from the charging instrument to shield [the defendant] from the hazard of having the knowledge of his prior criminal record prematurely imparted to the jury. [5] Brewer, 275 Ind. at 367, 417 N.E.2d at 906. Brewer also established that the jury is impermissibly tainted when the aggravating circumstance to be charged is either a prior murder conviction, a prior murder unrelated to the current offense, or a prior life sentence. Id. at 368, 417 N.E.2d at 906. And, as Evans put it, if the aggravating circumstances are prior unrelated crimes ... it is necessary that the information of prior crimes be withheld from the jury until the instant case is decided. Evans, 563 N.E.2d at 1259. Thus it was error to inform jurors of Thompson's conviction of Crandall's murder prior to the penalty phase. Cf. Leonard v. United States, 378 U.S. 544, 84 S.Ct. 1696, 12 L.Ed.2d 1028 (1964) (per curiam) (conviction reversed because five jurors had been present when the defendant's conviction of a similar charge was announced in open court before the trial); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871 (9th Cir.1994) (in action against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, trial court committed reversible error by informing jury sua sponte during voir dire of inmate's prior convictions for rape and sexual assault). We need not address whether this error is a ground for reversal in the absence of any objection by the defense because the convictions must be set aside for the reasons explained in Parts II and III. The issue is raised sua sponte to emphasize what Brewer and Evans made clear as to how prospective jurors should be instructed on aggravating circumstances in capital cases.