# Jones v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · April 24, 2006 · 134 P.3d 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796173

## Case

- **Full name:** Wesley Deion JONES, Appellant v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** April 24, 2006
- **Citations:** 134 P.3d 150; 2006 OK CR 17; 2006 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 16; 2006 WL 1061949
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Johnson
- **Judges:** Chapel, Johnson, Lewis, Lumpkin
- **Cited by:** 29 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796173

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796173. Public record. Not legal advice.