Court Opinion

ID: 9585554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:01:35.807097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.519411
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice EXUM
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority in this case, but I disagree with. the majority’s handling of defendant’s first assignment of error.
When the second juror was excused for cause after stating that he would have difficulty following the court’s instructions concerning the meaning of a life sentence, defense counsel conducted a voir dire of another juror. Following this voir dire, the defense had to decide which of six prospective jurors then remaining in the courtroom and earlier passed by the State it would accept. There was a discussion off the record between defense counsel and defendant. The following colloquy then occurred:
Mr. MANNING: Your Honor, may we approach the bench?
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. DODD: Judge, in view of the issues that were raised on parole that was raised in front to all the other jurors, we would request that you ask the remainder of the jurors if they have any problem following your instruction on parole, number one.
Number two, we would ask for the right to inquire of the remaining jurors whether they have — that’s if you’re not going to ask it. Only because it was raised and because everybody else who is sitting in here has heard it and we believe it may play a role consciously or subconsciously and we have to deal with it.
THE COURT: Well, I’m not going to ask them any questions. It’s your voir dire and can ask the appropriate questions.
*265MR. WILLOUGHBY: I think their views on parole are an inappropriate subject to be questioned under the law.
THE COURT: You can’t. He’s the one that raised it. That’s the only reason I gave them a charge, which is out of a Supreme Court case.
Mr. DODD: I understand.
The COURT: You can’t ask them that.
MR. DODD: I need to understand if they can follow the instruction you just gave. Surely I have the right to ask that in view of the fact you just gave it and they all heard it.
The COURT: I don’t think you can.
MR. Dodd: Okay.
THE COURT: No under our case law.
MR. DODD: Let me make sure I understand. You’re saying that I can’t ask anymore questions relating to parole or their ability to follow your instruction on parole.
THE COURT: Anything that deals with parole you cannot.
Ms. HILL: But you’re not saying he cannot ask the jurors will you be able to follow the law as the judge gives it to you. That’s a standard question you can ask.
The COURT: Yes.
MS. HILL: But not parole.
THE COURT: I’ll give them that when I charge them.
MS. HILL: Any instructions on the law the judge gives you in general.
THE COURT: Well, that’s the basic thing in picking a jury anyway is to follow the law. We spend a week picking a jury. Usually it takes five minutes to find out.
MS. HILL: You’re not telling Mr. Dodd he can’t ask that question but can’t pick out one instruction and ask about it.
MR. Dodd: Okay.
THE Court: Anything else?
*266MR. MANNING: I think we’re at the point where we need to make our decision and I was wondering if we could take about ten minutes to have our client back in the hallway to confer with him about it.
The COURT: Well, I’ll give you some time. I have 40 jurors upstairs ready to come down here. I have to talk to them a little bit. I will wait until after you make your challenges.
Mr. DODD: Before we make that decision, I want to ask one general question of the whole panel. That is, can they follow the law they’ve been instructed on so far on everything they’ve heard.
THE COURT: That’s an improper question you’re going to get back into. That’s improper for you to ask them. He already brought it up.
MR. DODD: You understand what my concern is.
The COURT: I understand.
Mr. Dodd: I don’t know any other way to do it except to ask them if they will follow all the instructions.
Ms. Hill,: Will you follow the judge’s instructions and not single it out.
The COURT: Ask if they know of any reason they have of their own why they could not.
Mr. Dodd: I’ll do that.
Ms. HILL: Before we call the next panel, do you know — can we be heard about the procedure of the second panel?
Mr. DODD: Sure.
The COURT: Okay.
(Recess)
Mr. Dodd: Your Honor, thank you for your time. With the defendant’s thanks, we would excuse Juror No. 1, Ms. Pope; Juror No. 6, Ms. Wetherington; and Juror No. 12, Mr. Albright.
The COURT: The three of you may step down and come over to the clerk’s desk and she’ll tell you where to go from here.
*267The defendant is satisfied with jurors No. 2, 4 and 11?
MR. DODD: Yes, Your Honor, we are.
The COURT: You may seat the new jurors, nine new jurors.
As I read the foregoing colloquy, the trial court declined to permit defense counsel to question the six jurors remaining in the courtroom regarding whether they could follow the court’s instructions concerning the meaning of a life sentence apparently on the ground that none of these jurors had expressed concern on this point. The trial court did, however, after much discussion, rule that it would permit defense counsel to ask these jurors whether they knew of any reason they could not follow the trial court’s instructions on the law. Apparently believing, as the majority surmises, that further questioning on the point would not produce revelations helpful to him, defendant declined to make this inquiry, electing instead to excuse peremptorily three of the six jurors and to accept three.
Having not pursued this line of inquiry even to the extent permitted by the court, I think defendant has waived any right to complain about the trial court’s refusal to permit him to ask the more specific question relating to the trial court’s earlier instruction on the meaning of a life sentence.
Neither do I believe the trial court’s handling of this issue amounted to error. Defendant did not seek to inquire of the remaining prospective jurors concerning their ability to follow the trial court’s instructions on the meaning of a life sentence immediately upon the excusal of the second juror for cause. Had he done so, the issue having been raised before these jurors and being fresh in their minds, I would agree with the majority that refusal on the part of the trial court to permit the inquiry would have been error. Defendant though, proceeded to question another prospective juror at some length concerning her general views and attitudes toward the death penalty. It was not until after this questioning occurred that defendant asked to reopen the parole eligibility issue with the remaining prospective jurors who had not indicated a problem with it. The trial court ruled that it would not permit reopening of the parole eligibility issue at that time but that it would permit defendant to ask generally whether the remaining jurors could follow the court’s instructions on the law. Under these circumstances I think it was within the trial court’s discretion *268to handle the matter as it did, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.