Opinion ID: 1058243
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire Questions

Text: Thomas submitted a list of 29 proposed voir dire questions. The trial court permitted Thomas to ask all but twonumbers 17 and 28. The two excluded questions read: 17. Meloni Thomas has been indicted, which indictment was based on evidence presented by the Commonwealth alone and none by the Defense. Does the existence of that indictment have any effect on anyone's opinion of the guilt or innocence of Meloni Thomas? Would it cause anyone in any way to doubt the presumption of innocence the accused is afforded? .... 28. If any one of you were my client, would there be any reason you would not want yourself on this jury? The trial court permitted the statement at the outset of item 17 and allowed the second question posed within it, but disallowed the first question. Thomas argues that the trial court erred in excluding the first question in proposal 17, and in excluding the proposed question in 28, because they seek to probe a prospective juror's interest or bias within the scope of Code § 8.01-358. We review a trial court's decision to exclude voir dire questions for an abuse of discretion. See Bassett v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 844, 853, 284 S.E.2d 844, 850 (1981). A defendant has no absolute right to have the court ask every question he propounded. Id. Code § 8.01-358, controlling voir dire questions, states in relevant part: The court and counsel for either party shall have the right to examine under oath any person who is called as a juror therein and shall have the right to ask such person or juror directly any relevant question to ascertain whether he is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein. We have stated that [t]rial courts must afford a party a full and fair opportunity to ascertain whether prospective jurors stand indifferent in the cause. LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 581, 304 S.E.2d 644, 653 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1063 [104 S.Ct. 744, 79 L.Ed.2d 202] (1984). However, it is within the trial court's sound discretion to decide when a defendant has had such an opportunity. Id., 304 S.E.2d at 653.... To be permissible, counsel's questions must be relevant in that they are such as would necessarily disclose or clearly lead to the disclosure of relationship, interest, opinion, or prejudice. See Code § 8.01-358. Where a trial court affords ample opportunity to counsel to ask relevant questions and where the questions actually propounded by the trial court were sufficient to preserve a defendant's right to trial by a fair and impartial jury, we will generally not reverse a trial court's decision to limit or disallow certain questions from defense counsel. See LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 582, 304 S.E.2d at 653; Mackall v. Commonwealth, 236 Va. 240, 251, 372 S.E.2d 759, 766 (1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 925 [109 S.Ct. 3261, 106 L.Ed.2d 607] (1989). Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389, 401, 384 S.E.2d 757, 764 (1989). That portion of proposed question 17 which was disallowed was amply covered by other questions asked by the trial court, such as: Do you understand and can you agree with the principle, one of the foundations of our laws, that the defendant is presumed to be innocent? Do you understand and can you agree with the principle in our law that the Commonwealth must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing a portion of proposed voir dire question 17. Proposed voir dire question 28 posed an open-ended question to the prospective jurors likely to generate speculative and irrelevant responses. [T]rial courts are not required to allow counsel to ask questions which are so ambiguous as to render the answers meaningless. Id. Furthermore, the trial court amply addressed the issue in its own questions: Are you aware or sense any bias or prejudice either against the Commonwealth or the accused? Do anyone of you know of any reason whatsoever why you cannot give a fair and impartial trial, both to the Commonwealth and to the accused, Meloni Thomas, based solely on the law which I will give you and the evidence you will hear? Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Question 28.