Opinion ID: 1202216
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Answers unintelligible.

Text: Several of Menzies' unintelligible or inappropriate answers cites involve voir dire of pertinent jurors. However, a review of the transcript reveals that the jurors' responses are readily reconcilable and/or nonprejudicial. It is true that some of the jurors' answers are inarticulate. [33] However, this may well be attributable to the jurors, not to the reporter. In any event, in each instance, one is able to ascertain that the juror is appropriately responding to the question posed. Difficulties with the answers can generally be reconciled by viewing the answer in the context of the question, and in each instance, it is possible to understand the juror's response. Furthermore, a vast majority of errors cited by Menzies relate to capital punishment. However, the jurors did not sit for the penalty phase of the proceedings. These questions are not highly relevant to an appeal of Menzies' conviction, and therefore, slight confusion surrounding these questions is not prejudicial. In addition, there are only one to four errors in a given juror's voir dire, and the voir dire questions are redundant. [34] The prejudicial effect of a transcription error in a voir dire question is diminished where the same basic information is sought in another question. [35] Given these facts, the instances of inarticulate answers are not prejudicial.