Snith v. State8/25/2000
rospective juror about his or her religious beliefs during voir dire examination; however, we agree with the Minnesota Supreme Court:
"Ordinarily at common law, inquiry on voir dire into a jurors' religious affiliation and beliefs is irrelevant and prejudicial, and to ask questions is improper. Questions about religious beliefs are relevant only if pertinent to religious issues involved in the case, or if a religious organization is a party, or if the information is a necessary predicate for a voir dire challenge. Coleman v. United States, 379 A.2d 951, 954 (D.C. 1977). See, e.g., United States v. Schullo, 390 F.Supp. 1067 (D.Minn. 1975) (Devitt, J.) (in an illegal gambling case, jurors asked by court if they had any moral or religious feelings about gambling so that they could not be fair and impartial). The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, controls the questions that can be asked to keep the voir dire within relevant bounds. In this case, we do not know how the juror's religious affiliation came to light, but proper questioning for a challenge should be limited to asking jurors if they knew of any reason why they could not sit, if they would have difficulty in following the law as given by the court, or if they would have any difficulty in sitting in judgment." State v. Davis, 504 N.W.2d 767, 772 (Minn. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1115 (1994). When denying certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg cited with approval the above-referenced language from Davis. Davis v. Minnesota, 511 U.S. 1115 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). See also State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 726 A.2d 531 (1998), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S.Ct. 409 (1999) (wherein Judge McDonald, in his concurring opinion, cited State v. Davis and Davis v. Minnesota and stated, "In the absence of a religious belief that may directly affect a venireperson's ability to serve on a jury in a particular case, religious beliefs are not relevant to the voir dire process and questions regarding religious beliefs should be disallowed." 248 Conn. at 268, 726 A.2d at 564.)
"`In selecting a jury for a particular case, "the nature, variety, and extent of the questions that should be asked prospective jurors" must be left largely within the sound discretion of the trial court. Peoples v. State, 375 So. 2d 561 (Ala.Crim.App. 1979). In other words, the scope of the voir dire examination of the jury venire is within the broad discretion of the trial court. Bowens v. State, 54 Ala. App. 491, 309 So. 2d 844 (1974), cert. denied, 293 Ala. 746, 309 So. 2d 850 (1975); Witherspoon v. State, 356 So. 2d 743 (Ala.Crim.App. 1978); Ervin v. State, 399 So. 2d 894 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 399 So. 2d 899 (Ala. 1981). It is highly proper for the trial court to conduct the voir dire examination. Witherspoon v. State, supra, and cases cited therein.' "Bracewell v. State, 447 So. 2d 815, 821 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), aff'd, 447 So. 2d 827 (Ala. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 980." Hall v. State, [Ms. CR-94-0661, October 1, 1999] ___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala.Crim.App.1999).
The trial court correctly denied defense counsel's request to question these jurors concerning the extent of their religious beliefs.
B.
Smith argues that the trial court erred in curtailing his voir dire examination of a prospective juror who indicated that the death penalty should be automatically imposed when the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of capital murder.
Smith's argument is not supported by the record. The record does not reflect that the trial court limited the voir dire examination of this prospective juror. The following occurred:
"The Court: Come on in a
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 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|