Opinion ID: 215635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Alleged Curtailment of Voir Dire.

Text: In September 1992, Kemp, through his attorney, first sought discovery with respect to possible prior and subsequent bad acts that the prosecutor might seek to present at trial. At a December 1992 pretrial hearing, the prosecutor agreed to give Kemp a list of prospective witnesses and noted that in the afternoon he would be interviewing the couple that were kidnaped out of Flagstaff. On January 25, 1993, Kemp filed a motion seeking discovery of evidence concerning the alleged kidnaping of the couple, which the trial court granted. Apparently, the State did not provide Kemp with the information requested, and on May 26, 1993, counsel filed two motions in limine to preclude the presentation of any evidence of any prior or subsequent bad acts by Mr. Kemp. One of the motions specifically requested that the kidnaped couple not be allowed to testify as to any inappropriate sexual behavior by Mr. Kemp towards [the husband]. On June 2, 2003, the case was called for trial in the Superior Court of Arizona, in and for the County of Pima. The judge was intent on selecting a jury, and when Kemp's attorney, Mr. Larsen, noted that there were unresolved pretrial motions, the court indicated that it intended to begin jury selection before we hear anything on the motion for change of venue. The prosecutor, Kenneth Peasley, tendered a new witness list, which included the husband abducted in Flagstaff. He indicated that the husband would present evidence concerning: (1) Kemp's silence to statements made by Logan in the husband's presence; (2) the husband's kidnaping; and (3) that in the room in Durango Mr. Kemp attempt[ed] to sexually molest and assault the husband. Peasley further claimed that the sexual assault was proof of all motives that Mr. Kemp has for the killing, and also explains conditions here in Tucson. After Peasley's comments, the trial judge stated I don't need to hear from you on that now, Mr. Larsen. A little later, before potential jurors entered the courtroom, Larsen reiterated that he wanted to know prior to trial what physical evidence and exhibits the prosecutor intends to use. The prosecutor apparently stated that he intended to introduce materials seized from Kemp, including photographs of naked men, but would make no reference to Kemp's sexually explicit materials and alleged homosexual act in his opening statement. The trial court indicated that the matter would be considered later. The trial court then asked the prosecutor and defense counsel whether they were ready to proceed and each answered yes. The prospective jurors were sworn in and the judge proceeded to voir dire the jury panel. When the trial judge asked counsel to pass on the panel, defense counsel stated that he had a number of questions. Defense counsel requested a ruling on the evidence that the prosecutor sought to introduce regarding any sexual matters as it pertains to both [victims]. Larsen was particularly concerned with the possible impact of allegations of sexual molestation on a juror whose father-in-law had been convicted of an incest charge. The trial judge proceeded to ask additional questions of that juror, but did not mention homosexuality. When defense counsel objected that the questions did not begin to approach what was necessary, the trial judge responded that Larsen had made his record. After the jury was empaneled, the trial court considered the outstanding motions. The judge, Larsen, and Peasley engaged in an extended discussion of the prosecutor's desire to have the husband testify concerning Kemp's alleged sexual assault and to present other evidence of Kemp's homosexuality. Larsen argued that the alleged incident was irrelevant and should not be admitted as it might inflame the jury. At one point he stated if we are going to allow thisthis onslaught of homosexual activity I want to re- voir dire the jury. I want to find out what their thoughts are on homosexuality. The trial judge eventually determined that the sexual contact with [the husband] is sufficiently relevant to allow that to be admitted into evidence. The trial judge, however, limited the other evidence that could be admitted. The next day, defense counsel reiterated his objections to the admission of the evidence of Kemp's contact with the husband, and argued that it was contrary to the court's prior ruling that no prior bad acts were to be used. Defense counsel, however, did not request further voir dire of the jury.