Opinion ID: 1992848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of voir dire on racial bias

Text: We have previously held that when, as in this case, the trial involves an interracial murder, defendant is entitled to have the potential jurors questioned about prejudices and biases. Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 243-48, 524 A. 2d 188; see also State v. Horcey, 266 N.J. Super. 415, 418, 629 A. 2d 1367 (App.Div. 1993) (Whenever there is a racial or ethnic difference between victim and accused, at defendant's request the trial judge should inquire of the prospective jurors as to whether the disparity will affect their ability to be impartial.). Prior to voir dire, defense counsel requested that the trial court ask the following questions: Mr. Loftin is a black man, victim white, would that in any way prejudice or influence your sitting as a juror in this case? Do you know of any reason, such as prejudice, bias, or other opinion that you can think of that would prevent you from serving as a completely impartial juror? The trial court agreed to ask the first question and noted that the other question would come out in the court's own extensive voir dire. The court informed defense counsel that if at the end of the court's preliminary questioning of the jurors you still have additional questions that you'd like to raise from this list, we can address it at that time. The trial court gave the following instruction to the prospective jurors: But in deciding what the facts are, you are to do so without bias, without prejudice, without sympathy, passion, or favor of any kind, and I'm going to talk a little bit more about bias and prejudice, because for most of us, when we hear the word prejudice, we get defensive because we don't want anybody to think or accuse us of being prejudiced. And that's why I asked that question yesterday. I pointed out to you that the defendant in this case is an African-American and that the victim in this matter is white, and I asked would any of you make a decision in this case based on the racial makeup, and you all answered no.... We need to find a little bit about yours, so these attorneys can make a decision as to whether or not your bias or prejudice will impact on your ability to be fair and impartial in this case. So I'm going to give you an example. And it's a very simplistic example, but I don't want you to think that because the example is simplistic that I'm not trying to make a serious point. I keep emphasizing your responsibility as a juror is very, very critical.... The example I'm going to use is a sports example. I am a diehard Cowboys fan.... Now, you know, the attorneys in this courthouse know where I'm going from. And some of them are real bold. They let me know, I don't like the Cowboys. How do I handle that?.... Getting back to the attorneys, when they walk in here, do I tell them you can't get justice because you don't have the ... right attitude.... Do I take that kind of attitude and be open about my bias, or do I take the more subtle approach?.... Obviously, isn't that how we deal with our biases and prejudices. This is 1994. We don't go out and openly tell people how we feel about things. Only you know that, but we ask you if have a bias or if you have a prejudice that would affect your ability to be fair to the State of New Jersey and fair to the defendant, tell us about it. You don't  you can wait a couple of questions, you can do it at sidebar, but if you believe that you have any bias that could affect your ability to be fair and impartial, please raise your hand. Defense counsel never objected to this explanation or sought to ask additional questions. Defendant now, however, claims that the trial court's failure to question jurors more extensively was plain error. First, defendant contends that the trial court's question invited only one answer, namely, that jurors are not racist. See Moore, supra, 122 N.J. at 449, 585 A. 2d 864. Second, defendant argues that the football analogy trivialized the issue. We find defendant's contentions to be without merit. We have often held that a general question about racial prejudice is sufficient absent a specific request or objection from defense counsel seeking more probing questions. See, e.g., State v. Perry, 124 N.J. 128, 157, 590 A. 2d 624 (1991) (finding one general question investigating potential presence of any passion, prejudice, sympathy or bias is sufficient absent request from counsel for more specific inquiry); State v. McDougald, 120 N.J. 523, 550-51, 577 A. 2d 419 (1990)(finding one general question sufficient to probe bias and prejudice where defense counsel also had freedom to inquire); Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 244-48, 524 A. 2d 188 (finding general question sufficient and commenting on ability of counsel to probe further). The trial court invited defense counsel to suggest additional questions if necessary, but defense counsel made no such request. Justice Handler argues that the trial court had a duty to conduct a further inquiry because defendant was charged with an interracial crime. Post at 416-20, 680 A. 2d at 737-39 (Handler, J., dissenting). However, that complaint ignores the basic principle of Perry, McDougald, and Ramseur, that a capital defendant accused of an interracial crime ... cannot complain of a judge's failure to question the venire on racial prejudice unless the defendant has specifically requested such an inquiry. Turner, supra, 476 U.S. at 37, 106 S.Ct. at 1689, 90 L.Ed. 2d at 37. Defense counsel asked for a general inquiry into bias, and the judge honored that request. We in no way require or suggest that the judge broach the topic sua sponte. Id. 476 U.S. at 37 n. 10, 106 S.Ct. at 1688 n. 10, 90 L.Ed. 2d at 37 n. 10. We find that the trial court's question was proper and appropriate. The court's football example may not have been ideal, but it adequately conveyed the point.