Court Opinion

ID: 9654899
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:54:20.918157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.590030
License: Public Domain

CORNELIUS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I believe the trial court acted within its discretion in construing defense counsel’s questions on voir dire as attempts to commit the panel members to a specific verdict. A careful reading of the voir dire questions and the court’s rulings shows that the court did not prohibit defense counsel from questioning the panel members about their willingness to follow the law and the court’s instructions. Defense counsel could have successfully made these inquiries by using the proper hypothetical questions phrased so they did not attempt to commit the panel members to specific verdicts. I would not reverse this case on such an exercise of the court’s broad discretion in regulating the voir dire.
Moreover, McGee was not harmed. He did not object to the court’s restricting the nature of his counsel’s questions at voir dire. We do not know what the panel members’ answers would have been to the unanswered and unmade questions McGee wanted to propose. McGee did not make or ask to make a bill of exceptions to show what answers would be made to the questions, or to show if any bias or prejudice or unwillingness to follow the court’s instructions on the part of any panel member would be revealed.
If the trial court’s ruling on McGee’s voir dire questions could be considered an abuse of discretion, the error was certainly harmless or was waived.
*304For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment.