Opinion ID: 1202216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Omissions.

Text: Menzies asserts that the transcript lacks voir dire questions and answers. In support of this contention, he cites to portions of the transcript which deal with individual voir dire. By reason of the fact that the same questions were asked of each juror, it is possible to reconstruct the list of individual voir dire questions and compare the list with the testimony of the pertinent prospective jurors. [39] Such an approach reveals that in voir dire of two pertinent jurors, the transcript does not contain a question asked of all other pertinent jurors. [40] The individual voir dire questions were read from a prepared list; therefore, it is likely that these questions were asked but not recorded. In arguing that these omissions require a new trial, Menzies relies on State v. Taylor. [41] As discussed above, in Taylor we ordered a new trial because omissions in the voir dire portion of the transcript rendered the record inadequate for appeal. [42] In reaching this conclusion, we noted that the omissions were extensive, the answers in the record indicated that jurors harbored prejudice, and the omissions occurred in portions of the transcript that directly related to issues on appeal. [43] In the instant case, only one question asked of two jurors was omitted, other questions cover the same basic information, [44] and the question concerns capital punishment and is therefore not directly at issue in the case. Given these circumstances, these omissions are not prejudicial, and the instant case is clearly distinguishable from Taylor. Although not cited by Menzies, the following omission in the general voir dire is also worth notice: THE COURT: HAVE YOU OR MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY OR CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS EVER BEEN A VICTIM OF A CRIME OF A SIMILAR NATURE AS THOSE WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE? ... . . . . THE COURT: DON JACKSON. WOULD THE FACT THAT YOUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR OR THAT POLICE OFFICER WAS KILLED PREVENT YOU FROM SITTING IN ON THIS CASE AND TRYING THIS CASE ON ITS MERITS? A JUROR: LAST WEEK I WAS ROBBED IN MY BUSINESS. THE COURT: DO YOU FEEL YOU CAN LISTEN TO THE EVIDENCE AND THE EVIDENCE ALONE TO REACH A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL VERDICT? A JUROR: PROBABLY. THE COURT: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? It is clear from this colloquy that there is a gap in the transcript. Don Jackson was dismissed for cause due to poor hearing. Therefore, the fact that portions of his responses are missing is of no concern. Rather, the difficulty is that it is not possible to tell from this portion of the transcript whether the gap incorporates testimony of other jurors. Nonetheless, this gap is not prejudicial. As noted above, it is possible to identify jurors who were challenged for cause and not dismissed. [45] In the arguments concerning whether these jurors should have been dismissed for cause, there was no mention of any concerns stemming from their prior experience with violent crime. It is clear, therefore, that Menzies did not object to any juror on any basis related to the missing testimony. In addition, when problems arose in the general voir dire, the jurors were questioned further on the subject in individual voir dire. None of the pertinent jurors were questioned concerning prior experience with violent crime. Thus, the record indicates that the pertinent jurors' testimony did not raise questions concerning their experience with violent crime. Furthermore, although there were no other questions dealing directly with past experience with violent crime, several other questions dealt with the presumption of innocence and prospective jurors' prejudice against criminal defendants. [46] Given these facts, this omission is distinguishable from the omissions in Taylor and does not prejudice Menzies' case on appeal. [47] The record is adequate to provide Menzies with a full and fair review of any claim relating to jury selection.