Court Opinion

ID: 9716520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:42:35.977931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.348121
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I find that I can no longer adhere to the recent construction given Rule 47(A) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure in White v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 302, 330 N.E.2d 84. There we concluded that the rule authorized the trial judge to restrict counsel participation in voir dire examination of prospective jurors to the submission of questions to be put to prospective jurors by the judge. Further consideration of the language and development of the rule prompted by this appeal has demonstrated to me that we were in error in that conclusion.
*100Our Rule 47 (A) provides:
“The court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by further inquiry.” (Emphasis added.)
Indiana closely patterned this rule after Rule 47 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which provides:
“The court may permit the parties or their attorneys to conduct the examination of prospective jurors or may itself conduct the examination. In the latter event, the court shall permit the parties or their attorneys to supplement the examination by such further inquiry as it deems proper or shall itself submit to the prospective jurors such additional questions of the parties or their attorneys as it deems proper.” (Emphasis added.)
We did reject two parts of Federal Rule 47 (a). The first verb was changed from “may” to “shall” and the last part beginning with “as it deems proper” was dropped entirely. The verb change is of less moment here, but does make the obligation of the trial court to permit the parties and lawyers to participate actively in the jury selection process more imperative.
The lengthy deletion on the other hand is clearly decisive here. Under Federal Rule 47(a), the trial judge, in the event he chooses to conduct the examination himself, must permit counsel to supplement his examination either by directly questioning prospective jurors or by submitting questions to be put to prospective jurors by the judge. In adopting our Rule 47 (A), Indiana dropped that part of Federal Rule 47(a) which permitted the trial judge to limit counsel to the submission of questions to be put by the judge, and retained that part which granted the right to counsel to orally question prospective jurors.
Under a correct interpretation of our Rule 47 (A), counsel is granted the right to supplement the trial judge’s examination of prospective jurors by directly addressing questions *101to them. The trial judge has the authority to limit the time and subject matter of such questioning, but he may not preclude it entirely under the rule as I now understand it to be.
Neither can I agree with the statement contained in the majority opinion in resolution of the jury selection issue, that the defendant has a duty to establish that those conducting the jury selection process intended to exclude Black citizens from the jury. The law requires no such proof. Sanders v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 48, 284 N.E.2d 751.
Note. — Reported at 339 N.E.2d 792.