Opinion ID: 1636806
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limitation of Inquiry into Mental Health Evidence as Mitigating Circumstance

Text: Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 24(a), in pertinent part, states that the trial court shall permit questioning by the parties for the purpose of discovering bases for challenge for cause and enabling an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. It further states that [t]he court ... may direct that any portion of the questioning of a prospective juror be conducted out of the presence of the tentatively selected jurors and other prospective jurors. Although the rule provides no test for determining whether the scope of questioning is adequate to fulfill the rule's purpose, Tennessee courts have held that the scope and extent of voir dire is entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge, and his actions will not be disturbed unless clear abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Harris, 839 S.W.2d 54, 65 (Tenn.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954, 113 S.Ct. 1368, 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993); see also State v. Smith, 993 S.W.2d 6, 28 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1023, 120 S.Ct. 536, 145 L.Ed.2d 415 (1999). Thus, the method of voir dire, i.e., individual or group, [4] the questions that may be asked, and the scope of inquiry are all within the discretion of the trial court. [5] In the present case, the trial court, prior to the commencement of jury selection, instructed counsel that individual voir dire would be limited to issues surrounding pretrial publicity and death qualification, unless there has been something on that questionnaire that we need to deal with individually. Defense counsel informed the court that, from the questionnaires, an amazingly large number of jurors recorded for us mental health issues related to themselves or to their family. As this obviously would be a subject of voir dire where they have indicated something which is innately a personal topic, I wonder if the Court would like to consider those questions. [6] The court denied the Appellant's request to question jurors during individual voir dire regarding mental health issues, but stated, that is something that you can deal [with] within the general voir dire. The trial court additionally informed defense counsel that during the individual voir dire they could ask the general question, Will you consider all mitigation? and also permitted the parties to question the potential jurors regarding any matters that the jurors had designated as private on their questionnaires. Regarding group voir dire, the trial court limited inquiry into mental health issues, requiring any question to be an attempt to clarify a position stated in the questionnaire or be a general inquiry regarding the juror's ability to consider mental health testimony. [7] The Appellant now contends that the limitations placed on voir dire prevented him from developing possible cause challenges against jurors who had already expressed negative attitudes about mental health evidence, [8] thereby rendering the limitations essentially meaningless. We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. Defense counsel had access to the questionnaires of the prospective jurors. The questionnaires combined with the permissible inquiries as to mental health issues during individual and group voir dire provided the Appellant with ample background information from which to exercise peremptory challenges. Accordingly, we find that the limited restrictions placed upon the parties by the trial court were reasonable and were well within the trial court's discretion. This issue is without merit.