Smith v. State5/26/2000
swer to a question applies to you, but you don't want to share it with the rest of your fellow jurors, you are free to come up here to the bench and outside the hearing of the rest of your fellow jurors tell us whatever your response is." (R. 15-16.)
The record reflects that the trial court did grant individual voir dire to the extent that any juror who thought his or her answer was sensitive could be questioned outside the presence of the remaining venire members.
"`"In Alabama, there is no requirement that a defendant be allowed to question each prospective juror individually during voir dire examination. This rule applies to capital cases, and the granting of a request for individual voir dire is discretionary with the trial court." Coral v. State, 628 So. 2d 954, 968 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). "The fact that the appellant's case involved capital murder is not alone reason to require individual voir dire. ... A trial court's decision in denying individual voir dire examination of a jury panel will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion." Smith v. State, 588 So. 2d 561, 579 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). See also Henderson v. State, 583 So. 2d 276, 283 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990), affirmed, 583 So. 2d 305 (Ala. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908, 112 S.Ct. 1268, 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992).'
"Taylor v. State, 666 So. 2d 36, 66 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), aff'd, 666 So. 2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996). See also Smith v. State, 727 So. 2d 147 (Ala.Cr.App. 1998); and George v. State, 717 So. 2d 827 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd in pertinent part, 717 So. 2d 844 (Ala. 1996), aff'd on return to remand, 717 So. 2d 849 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997), aff'd, 717 So. 2d 858 (Ala.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 556, 142 L.Ed.2d 462 (1998). Perkins offered no evidence in the trial court to show how he was prejudiced as a result of prospective jurors being questioned in panels, as opposed to individually, regarding their views on capital punishment. On appeal, he offers only general arguments concerning the possibility of prejudice and fails to show that any comments by a prospective juror improperly influenced other members of a panel.
"`A trial court is vested with great discretion in determining how voir dire examination will be conducted, and that court's decision on how extensive a voir dire examination is required will not be overturned except for an abuse of that discretion.' Ex parte Land, 678 SO. 2d 224, 242 (Ala.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 933, 117 S.Ct. 308, 136 L.Ed.2d 224 (1996). A careful review of the record reveals that the method of voir dire employed by the trial court was sufficient to `provide reasonable assurance that prejudice would have been discovered if present.' Haney [v. State], 603 So. 2d at 402 [(Ala.Crim.App. 1992)]. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Perkins's motion for individual, sequestered voir dire examination regarding the veniremembers' views on capital punishment."
Perkins v. State, [Ms. CR-93-1931, November 19, 1999] ___ So.2d ___, ___ (Ala. Cr. App. 1999). See also Ingram v. State, [Ms. CR-94-1733, October 18, 1999] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1999) and Whitehead v. State, [Ms. CR-95-2129, October 18, 1999] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala.Cr.App. 1999).
This case is similar to Perkins. Smith has offered no specific allegations that any prospective juror was prejudiced by the answers of another prospective juror. The trial court's method of voir dire examination was sufficient.
III.
Smith argues that the trial court committed reversible error, and violated the United States Supreme Court's holding in Witherspoon v. Illinois
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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|