Gresham v. State, 84-305
| Decision Date | 25 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-305,84-305 |
| Citation | 708 P.2d 49 |
| Parties | Walter GRESHAM, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Leonard D. Munker, Public Defender, and Martin J. McClain, Appellate Counsel, Wyoming Public Defender Program, for appellant.
A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., John W. Renneisen, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thomas A. Maurer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before THOMAS, C.J., and ROSE, ROONEY, BROWN and CARDINE, JJ.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence rendered after a jury trial in which appellant was found guilty of the crime of incest in violation of § 6-4-402, W.S.1977. The only issue on appeal is whether or not the trial court properly handled the voir dire process. Specifically, appellant contends that the court's questions and comments to the jurors during the voir dire prevented the selection of fair-minded jurors.
We affirm.
The jury consisted of twelve people and one alternate. Each side had eight peremptory challenges, and fifteen of the sixteen peremptory challenges were used. The appellant did not object at any time to the manner in which the voir dire was conducted or to the judge's rulings on challenges for cause. Appellant refers to the judge's questions and comments during the voir dire examination of five prospective jurors to sustain his contention that such prevented the selection of fair and impartial jurors. Four of these five were taken off the jury by peremptory challenges and the other was excused by the judge for cause. Only two of the five were challenged for cause, both times by the appellee and not the appellant.
Because of the nature of the issue here presented, and although quite lengthy, we set forth the questions and comments of the court in context which form the grounds for appellant's contention. Mr. Helling and Mr. Bath were the prosecuting attorneys and Mr. McKinney was defense counsel.
4. The court did not question prospective juror Wilson or make any comment to him. The following was presented in appellant's brief to demonstrate "the participant's fear of angering the judge by contending that a juror might be biased." A comment characterized by appellee as "mere speculation."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lauthern v. State
...trial, the appellant must establish that the alleged error was plain error. Lozano v. State, 751 P.2d 1326, 1327 (Wyo.1988); Gresham v. State, 708 P.2d 49 (Wyo.1985). Failure to object at trial constitutes a waiver of the alleged error unless the error rises to the level of plain error. Bra......
-
Summers v. State, 85-148
...The purpose of voir dire to explore for possible grounds for challenge for cause under state statutes was reaffirmed in Gresham v. State, Wyo., 708 P.2d 49 (1985). These cases which recognize the legitimate purpose of voir dire are consistent with the constitutional standard of fairness whi......
-
Law v. State
...[v. State, 891 P.2d 793 (Wyo.1995)]; Summers v. State, 725 P.2d 1033 (Wyo.1986), confirmed on reh'g, 731 P.2d 558 (1987); Gresham v. State, 708 P.2d 49 (Wyo.1985); Jahnke v. State, 682 P.2d 991 (Wyo.1984); Hopkinson v. State, 632 P.2d 79 (Wyo.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 128......
-
Miller v. State
...by showing that the trial court could not have reasonably concluded as it did. See Schwenke, 768 P.2d at 1034-35; Gresham v. State, 708 P.2d 49, 56-57 (Wyo.1985); Munden v. State, 698 P.2d 621, 625-26 (Wyo.1985); Bradley v. State, 635 P.2d 1161, 1165 With respect to appellant's first assign......