 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. State6/30/1998
x springs of the bed.
Jackson was located by police at Leffette's apartment at about noon on September 7, 1994. He was taken into custody. In the room where Jackson was arrested the police found Cade's jewelry, watch, and keys to the Jeep. Jackson admitted to police that if Cade was dead, he did it, but he did not want to talk about the details of the killing.
II. JURY SELECTION ISSUES
Jackson contends in proposition one that the trial court erred by prohibiting counsel from conducting voir dire on his defense theory of diminished mental capacity. Jackson also complains that it was error for the trial court to prohibit counsel from inquiring about the juror's perception of a "life sentence."
Jackson claims, first, that he was denied his right to effective voir dire by being prohibited from inquiring about potential juror's feelings toward a defense of diminished capacity based on drug or alcohol consumption. The manner and extent of voir dire rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. Plantz v. State, 1994 OK CR 33, 24, 876 P.2d 268, 277, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1130, 130 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1995).
"The principles governing the sufficiency of voir dire questions derive from the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury in criminal prosecutions." "The purpose of voir dire . . . is to ascertain whether there are grounds to challenge for either actual or implied bias to permit the intelligent exercise of preemptory challenges." As long as the examination of prospective jurors is sufficiently broad to afford a defendant a jury not affected by outside influences, personal interests or bias, a Judge's decision to limit questioning will not be ruled an abuse of discretion. Voir dire rulings lay within the trial Judge's discretion because the "determination of impartiality, in which demeanor plays such an important part, is particularly within the province of the trial Judge."
Walker v. State, 1994 OK CR 66, 12, 887 P.2d 301, 307, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 166, 133 L.Ed.2d 108 (1995)(alterations in original)(citations omitted). We are not interested in whether or not a certain question was allowed to be asked, but rather whether the defendant was allowed sufficient voir dire to determine if there were grounds to challenge a particular juror for cause and to intelligently exercise his preemptory challenges.
In Nauni v. State, 1983 OK CR 136, 9, 670 P.2d 126, 130, we held that no abuse of discretion occurred when the Judge restricted voir dire questioning regarding legal issues the trial court had to instruct the jury upon. In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Jackson's questions regarding his theory of defense. The questions were an effort to test jurors' willingness to accept his theory of defense rather than to test their impartiality. Ultimately, instructions on voluntary intoxication were not given. Therefore, defense counsel's proposed questions would only have confused the jury.
In answer to Jackson's second allegation, there was no error in not allowing defense counsel to probe jurors regarding their perception of a "life sentence." We have never held that the jury should be told about the inner workings of the parole system, nor have we held that jurors should be informed about the length of life sentences versus sentences of life without the possibility of parole. Johnson v. State, 1996 OK CR 36, 45-49, 928 P.2d 309, 319-20, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 99, 139 L.Ed.2d 54 (1997). We hold that the meaning of a life sentence and a sentence of life without parole is not a proper subject for voir dire.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|