Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Element of Deliberation

Text: Morrow maintains the that the trial court prohibited questioning regarding the difference between first and second degree murder. The record shows that the court refused to allow Morrow to refer to the element of deliberation. The trial court also refused to provide the prospective jurors with a definition of first and second degree murder during voir dire. Morrow claims that these restrictions prohibited him from intelligently exercising his peremptory and for cause strikes. `Counsel may not tell prospective jurors what law will be applied in the case or what instructions will be given.' Brown, 902 S.W.2d at 286 (citation omitted). Further, the record undermines Morrow's arguments because it reveals that the trial court went to great lengths to help Morrow's counsel come up with proper questions to probe the prospective jurors' feelings on this matter. In fact, it was Morrow who abandoned this line of questioning after being permitted to ask the following questions: If the court were to instruct you on different degrees of homicide, can you keep an open mind and listen to the evidence that you hear and apply that to those instructions? Is there anyone here who cannot consider a lesser degree of homicide when someone is charged with murder in the first degree? Is there anyone who believes that if a gun is involved in a shooting it was a planned act, simply because a gun was involved in the shooting? I explained to you that there were different degrees of homicide ... And in all of these homicides a gun could be used, a weapon or gun involved. Do any of you believe just because a gun is used that it is a murder first degree case, and that you would not consider a lesser degree of homicide? The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Point denied.