Court Opinion

ID: 9773691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:54:50.446136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:56.300775
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of the majority that reversal is called for due to the trial court’s improper restriction of appellant’s voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. While the defense should be permitted to ascertain whether prospective jurors would give unwavering credibility to any witness because of his membership in a class, such as peace officer or minister, regardless of what the evidence may show, no particular form of question is being enshrined as being always in order. As the dissent properly points out, the jury selection process is already, in many cases, too long and drawn out. I do not understand the majority position, however, as adding a particular question to some check list of permissible questions, each of which may in every case be asked. The trial court properly may limit examination of prospec*855tive jurors to reasonable bounds to avoid undue prolongation, and within reasonable bounds counsel has the duty to budget his time. But when counsel is not prolonging the examination beyond reasonable bounds, he may pose any proper question he desires. The majority, as I understand it, holds the propounded question was proper in all respects.
I therefore concur.
MORRISON, J., joins in this concurrence.