Opinion ID: 1609315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: state's remarks during voir dire

Text: Shipps asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motions for mistrial and for new trial based on the State's remarks during voir dire that Shipps was a married man who had engaged in an adulterous relationship. During voir dire, the trial court asked a number of questions of the prospective jurors, and then the State began its questioning by indicating that the case involved sexual matters. The prosecutor said: The evidence, I think, is going to show, ladies and gentlemen, that when the defendant, Kelly Shipps, was having  he had a relationship with an individual named [D.H.,] who is the victim. At the time that Mr. Shipps and [D.H.] were having the relationship, Mr. Shipps was still married. Do any of you feel that the fact that  At that point, defense counsel objected, and a sidebar conference was held. Defense counsel's motion for a mistrial was overruled. The prosecutor then asked, Do any of you feel that if a woman is engaged in a relationship with a married guy, that means she deserves whatever she gets? In other words, it's okay to sexually assault somebody if they've been having an affair? The defense raised no objection to these questions. The State continued its line of questioning about sexual relationships and sexual assault without objection. During defense counsel's questioning on voir dire, he stated: [Y]ou heard statements before that Mr. Shipps was married, and the testimony will come out that Mr. Shipps indeed was married. Mr. Shipps had had a long-time relationship with the complaining witness, [D.H.,] and that this  that Mr. Shipps spending the night with [D.H.] was a frequent event despite the fact he was married, and does the fact  well, does the fact that this information will come out, will this cause you to be prejudiced to Mr. Shipps so that you wouldn't be able to provide a fair verdict for him? And that means following the judge's instructions? Counsel continued: This is a case involving a married man who's had a relationship. I think the term of art is a meretricious relationship with another woman, and now he's accused of having sex with this other woman without her consent. Would this cause you any problems in judging this case and following the judge's instructions? At one point, the trial court intervened and stated: Whether or not the victim or the defendant was married is not an element of [the] crime, so it is not relevant to the proof in this case. So given that, do you think you would be able to fairly judge it, knowing that the defendant was or was not a married man, and simply stick to what I tell you the State has to prove? Shipps claims that the prosecutor's comments about the relationship between Shipps and D.H. poisoned the proceedings from the beginning because his marital status and the adulterous relationship had no relevance to the charges brought against him. The decision whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Haltom, 264 Neb. 976, 653 N.W.2d 232 (2002). A mistrial is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial. State v. Myers, 258 Neb. 272, 603 N.W.2d 390 (1999). In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court's determination will not be disturbed. State v. Aguilar, 264 Neb. 899, 652 N.W.2d 894 (2002). The right of both parties in a criminal action to question prospective jurors is well established. This court has long held that voir dire examination of prospective jurors requires the trial court to give each of the parties the right, within reasonable limits, to put pertinent questions to each and all of the prospective jurors for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there exists [sic] sufficient grounds for challenge for cause and also to aid each of the parties in the exercise of the statutory right of peremptory challenge. Oden v. State, 166 Neb. 729, 735, 90 N.W.2d 356, 360 (1958). The Oden court cited to Strong v. State, 106 Neb. 339, 340, 183 N.W. 559, 559-60 (1921), in which the court stated: The principal purpose of the voir dire examination is to ascertain whether the proposed juror is free from bias or prejudice, and whether he is in such attitude of mind with respect to the case in hand that he would be a fair and impartial juror. With this end in view, it is the policy of the law to give to the parties ample opportunity to question the venireman upon matters bearing upon his competency, and questions which tend to show his attitude of mind and feelings should not be unreasonably abridged. And as each party has the right to exercise a certain number of peremptory challenges, it is proper, within reasonable limits, to propound questions which, in the judgment of the respective parties, may assist them in the exercise of that right. The extent to which the examination may be carried rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of discretion to the prejudice of the party complaining. See, also, Trebelhorn v. Bartlett, 154 Neb. 113, 47 N.W.2d 374 (1951). The questions asked by the prosecutor during voir dire can be interpreted as an attempt to determine the attitude of mind and feelings of the jurors. See Strong, 106 Neb. at 340, 183 N.W. at 559. The State has the right within reasonable limits to ask questions which will assist it in exercising its peremptory challenges. Shipps was charged with sexual assault. The relationship between Shipps and D.H. included consensual sex, and it may have been important for the State to ask prospective jurors whether they could determine the case based solely on the evidence or whether they had preconceived notions about the character of the parties. The defense also asked questions about the issue after objecting to the State's comments, indicating that the defense had concerns about the jury's thoughts and feelings related to an adulterous relationship. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying both the motion for mistrial and the motion for new trial on the basis of the State's remarks during voir dire. These assignments of error have no merit.