prohibiting counsel from asking if prospective juror would "automatically" impose the death penalty and not consider life sentence options if defendant is convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder "is reversible error"
How later courts described this case
- prohibiting counsel from asking if prospective juror would "automatically" impose the death penalty and not consider life sentence options if defendant is convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder "is reversible error"
- juror who acknowledged she would sentence defendant to death if he were convicted of two counts of first-degree murder should have been excused "for cause"
- “The essential difference between First and Second Degree Murder is intent to kill.”
- lesser included instructions should be given if supported by the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
A. JOHNSON, Judge,
concurs:
¶ 1 I concur in the opinion and write separately only in response to the position set forth in note 19.
¶ 2 There is no doubt that jury questionnaires and individual voir dire, when properly employed, are important tools in creating the right jury to decide a particular case. Certainly the use of those tools should be favored in all capital cases where a mistake is costly to remedy, if it can be remedied at all.
¶ 3 I believe, however, that the exact process of fitting a jury to a particular case is best left to the trial court and its consideration of the available venire on the one hand, and the circumstances of the ease for trial on the other. I would not agree, therefore, that individual sequestered voir dire should be mandated in every capital case.