Opinion ID: 1687180
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: prejudicial errors during voir dire

Text: Contrary to West's contention, there was no Witherspoon error committed in excluding prospective juror Dinkins for cause nor on any other excused juror. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). West then asserts that, assuming these prospective jurors were properly excluded under Witherspoon, by excusing all jurors who had conscientious scruples against the death penalty, only a conviction prone jury was left, not representative of a cross-section of the community. He cites Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F. Supp. 1273 (E.D.Ark. 1983); affirmed 637 F.2d 525 (8th Cir.1980). This argument has been rejected by the United States Supreme Court and our 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. See: Sonnier v. Maggio, 720 F.2d 401 (5th Cir.1983); Smith v. Balkcom, 660 F.2d 573 (5th Cir.1981); Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F.2d 582 (5th Cir.1978); Spencer v. Zant, 715 F.2d 1562 (11th Cir.1983); Woodard v. Hutchins, 464 U.S. 377, 104 S.Ct. 752, 78 L.Ed.2d 541 (1984). West next complains of prejudicial questions asked by the district attorney during voir dire of the prospective jurors. It would appear the state went beyond proper questions, delved too deeply, and asked questions which would be subject to misinterpretation or confusion. However, a voir dire examination of jurors must be discretionary with the circuit judge, and in the absence of objection we have no way of knowing the degree of influence it had, if any, on the ultimate verdict. West was represented by an experienced trial attorney. His capital murder experience is subject to question, but we have no authority to reverse a case, on a discretionary matter with the trial court, in the absence of some palpable, obvious prejudicial error when an experienced trial lawyer sat there and never offered the first objection. See Booker v. State, 449 So.2d 209, 219 (Miss. 1984); Coleman v. State, 378 So.2d 640, 649 (Miss. 1979); and Murphy v. State, 246 So.2d 920, 922 (Miss. 1971). If we did, we might as well tell all attorneys they have no responsibility whatever: sit back, do not object, indeed encourage prosecutorial errors, and this Court will correct defense as well as prosecution mistakes. While the district attorney gave attention to minutiae, and his voir dire appears overdone in certain respects, none of the questions were of a serious nature, and if trial counsel deemed them objectionable he should have stated his objection to the circuit judge. Having made these observations, we also state that district attorneys would be well advised to keep their voir dire questions on well-trod, accepted paths. There was absolutely no need in this case to wander afield. The prosecution and circuit judge should also avoid questions seeking a promise or commitment from the jury to convict if the state proves certain facts. This is error. See: Murphy v. State, 246 So.2d 920 (Miss. 1971), and cases cited. While the prosecution wandered astray, we cannot say there was a violation of the proscription of Murphy. Moreover, there was no objection.