 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bankston2/4/1999
d on what they had heard and whether they could set aside what they had heard and decide the case based on the evidence at trial. Prospective jurors who indicated that they had formed an opinion regarding the defendant's guilt or innocence or could not set aside what they had heard in the media were excused. Each juror that actually heard the case told the trial court that they could listen to the evidence and make a decision on the defendant's guilt or innocence based on that evidence.
We do not dispute the fact that the incident garnered a lot of media coverage. One radio station in Chattanooga ran fifty-two news stories, and both newspapers in Chattanooga printed a combined forty- four stories. However, as this court has previously recognized, a defendant who commits a serious crime cannot be expected to remain anonymous in the community. State v. Griffis, 964 S.W.2d 577, 597 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). Based on our review of the trial court's proceedings during voir dire, we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's motion for a change of venue. In addition, the defendant has failed to establish that the jurors selected to serve during his trial were biased or prejudiced against him in light of the fact that all jurors empaneled expressed that they could listen to the evidence and base their verdicts on the evidence presented at trial.
IV. VOIR DIRE OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS
The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to voir dire certain prospective jurors individually regarding whether they felt the defendant could receive a fair trial in Hamilton County. Specifically, he argues that a prospective juror's testimony regarding the ability of the defendant to receive a fair trial amounts to an affidavit averring undue excitement, which can be grounds for a change of venue. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 21(b). The state argues that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
The control of the voir dire is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be found to be error unless the defendant shows that he was prejudiced. Howell, 868 S.W.2d at 247. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and defendant has failed to show that he was prejudiced.
The trial court permitted individual questioning of the venire. After questioning thirty-eight jurors, the defendant asked one juror, who had already determined that the defendant was guilty based upon pretrial publicity, whether the juror thought the defendant could receive a fair trial in Hamilton County. Seventeen jurors later, the defendant sought to ask the same question of a juror who had been excused because she had already formed an opinion regarding the defendant's guilt and could not put it aside. This time, however, the state objected and the trial court sustained the objection.
We do not believe that the trial court erred by not allowing the defendant to question prospective jurors who had been dismissed for cause in order to support his motion for a change of venue. Our supreme court has ruled that the "ultimate goal of voir dire is to insure that jurors are competent, unbiased, and impartial." State v. Cazes, 875 S.W.2d 253, 262 (Tenn. 1994). The two jurors whom the defendant sought to question regarding whether he could receive a fair trial stated that they had formed an opinion regarding the defendant's guilt and could not set it aside. These jurors were dismissed for cause by the trial court because they were clearly biased. Further questioning of jurors, who have already been shown to be biased, in order to support a motion for a change of venue does not further the goal of 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 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|