Opinion ID: 1325644
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refusal to Disqualify Venire.

Text: Mueller contends that the comments of one venireperson improperly tainted the group and that the trial court erred in failing to disqualify the entire venire for this reason. During the trial court's questioning of the first group of 14 prospective jurors, David Clark told the court that another prospective juror, Helen Blackwell, stated in the jury waiting room that she had some strong feelings about the innocence or guilt of the defendant. The trial court then asked the entire panel, [H]ave any of you acquired any information about the alleged offense or the accused from news media or other sources, and if so, would that information affect your impartiality in the case? The trial court postponed questioning of those who answered in the affirmative until the individual questioning of each prospective juror. [5] When questioned individually, only Robert Mitchell referred to comments which he had overheard in the waiting room. Mitchell stated that he had heard another prospective juror say that Mueller had confessed. Another prospective juror, Ruby Moschler, stated that she had not overheard any prospective juror making statements in the waiting room. At the end of the voir dire, the trial court asked the entire venire whether any member had heard anything since being questioned by the court which would change any answer he or she had given previously. No one answered in the affirmative. Mueller cites no evidence to support his contention that the venire was tainted by the comments of Helen Blackwell. Further, the record reflects that both counsel had ample opportunity to question each prospective juror as to what he or she had heard, in the waiting room and elsewhere, about the case. This questioning revealed no evidence that Blackwell's comment had influenced or prejudiced the prospective jurors in any way. In fact, Mitchell, the only prospective juror who mentioned having heard Blackwell's comment, said that the statement he overheard was a casual thing and that it was not important to me at that time. The trial court is vested with discretion to determine whether the parties have had a full and fair opportunity to determine whether a juror stands indifferent to the cause. Buchanan, 238 Va. at 401, 384 S.E.2d at 764; LeVasseur, 225 Va. at 581, 304 S.E.2d at 653. Since the answers to the questions posed by the trial court, as well as by counsel for both parties, indicated that none of the prospective jurors was affected by Helen Blackwell's statement, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disqualify the entire venire.